Who gave you those instructions?
Miss Corning.
How?
In a conference over long-distance telephone.
Now, you sent some two hundred and seven thousand dollars from the Corning Company to the Mojave Monarch during the past year. Were there any returns from that company?
Not directly to the Corning Mining, Smelting & Investment Company, but rather to a subsidiary company. I was advised by Miss Corning that the subsidiary company would make an accounting at the proper time.
Now, when you saw Mr. Lowry, did you have any conversation with him about his activities?
I did.
And what did he tell you with reference to money which had been forwarded by him or what he had done with the money which had been sent him by the Corning Mining Company?
Objected to, Mason said. Incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; not the best evidence; calling for hearsay and for a conversation not within the hearing of the defendant.
If the Court please, Flanders said, this is part of the res gestae. This discloses the reason that Lowry was murdered. This was an official conversation between an employee of the company and the manager.
I dont care how official it was, Mason said. It wasnt binding on this defendant. Moreover, it is now quite apparent that Lowry wasnt in the employ of the Corning Company in any way. He was receiving money from the Corning Company and quite apparently from the testimony he was doing something with it other than sending it to the Corning Company.
Thats exactly the point I want to prove, Flanders said.
Prove it by competent evidence then, Mason snapped.
I think the point is well taken, Judge Elmer said. I suppose its a matter of bookkeeping record, isnt it?
As a matter of fact, it is not, Flanders said. It is a peculiar situation and it is because of this situation that Lowry was murdered. We can show by several persons what Lowry did with the money that was received.
You can show what he claimed he did with it, Mason said, but what he claimed isnt binding on this defendant.
I think I will sustain the objection, Judge Elmer said.
Very well, Flanders said, his manner ostentatiously indicating disappointment, but it was quite evident from Burgers manner that he had anticipated the ruling.
Did you have a subsequent conversation that day with Mr. Lowry, a conversation which took place after you left Mojave?
I did.
What time was that conversation?
Around five oclock in the afternoon.
Was that conversation a personal conversation or a telephone conversation?
It was over the telephone.
What did Mr. Lowry say?
He told me that Mr. Mason and his secretary
Now just a minute, Mason said, I wish to interpose an objection to that conversation as hearsay, as being incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and no proper foundation laid. There is no indication that the defendant was present or that this conversation, in whole or in part, was ever relayed to the defendant.
I am referring to a conversation which took place between the decedent and this witness, Flanders said, relating to statements which were made by Mr. Mason as attorney for this defendant.
Judge Elmer shook his head. Unless you can show that this conversation was communicated to the defendant, or that she was present, or heard the conversation, the objection will be sustained.
Very well, Flanders said. Now, did you have any conversation with the defendant personally about this shoe box filled with money?
I most certainly did.
Who was present at that conversation?
The defendant, Perry Mason acting as her attorney, and Miss Della Street, Perry Masons secretary.
And what was said?
I told her that there was no shoe box filled with money in the safe at the office as she had advised me was the case.
And what did she have to say with reference to that?
Nothing, except to insist that my son had given her a shoe box.
Your son is how old?
Seven years old.
His name?
Carleton.
And when did the defendant tell you the shoe box had been given to her?
She said that morning at the office Carleton, accompanied by his governess, Elizabeth Dow, had delivered the shoe box to her; that she had inspected it and found that it was filled with hundred-dollar bills.
Cross-examine, Flanders said.
You went to the office before this conversation you had with us to search for that shoe box? Mason asked.
I did.
Why?
She told me that my son had given it to her and stated that it was mine. I certainly wanted to investigate, both as a father and as an official of the company.
And you were unable to find any such shoe box in the safe?
That is right.
You opened the safe to look?
Yes.
Was anyone with you?
No.
Then it is only your word against hers.
Endicott Campbell gave himself the luxury of a triumphant grin. So far, Mr. Mason, he said sarcastically, it is my word against hers, and so far, at least, I am not accused of killing anyone to cover my defalcations.
Mason bowed. So far, he said. Thank you, thats all for the moment.
Call your next witness, Judge Elmer said.
Call Elizabeth Dow, Flanders said.
Elizabeth Dow, a woman who had an angular figure which she made no attempt to improve in any way, came striding flat-footed to the witness stand. She sat with immobile features as she awaited questions after giving her name, address, and occupation.
You are familiar with Carleton Campbell, the seven-year-old son of Endicott Campbell, the witness who has just testified?
Yes.
Do you have some official connection with him?
I am his governess.
Were you such on Saturday, the third of this month?
Yes.
Did you take him to the office of the Corning Mining Company on the morning of the third?
I did.
Who was there?
Susan Fisher, the defendant.
Was there some conversation between Susan and Carleton?
Yes.
You overheard this conversation?
Yes. Some of it.
Was Carleton carrying anything when he came to the office?
Yes.
What was it?
A shoe box.
Do you know of your own knowledge what was in that shoe box?
I do.
What was it?
A pair of black patent-leather dress shoes belonging to Endicott Campbell.
How do you know what was in there?
There was some conversation before we left the house between Carleton and his father about a treasure box and Carleton asked his father if he could trade treasures. Carleton thought he had his fathers permission to take this shoe box.
There was only the one box?
Thats right, only the one box that Carleton took from the house.
Now, how do you know what was in it?
After we were in the automobile I took occasion to untie the box when Carleton was not looking. I wanted to find out just what was in it because naturally I felt in a way responsible.
What was in it?
As I have stated, just a pair of black shoes.
Thats all. You may inquire, Harrison Flanders said with a little bow to Perry Mason.
You were driving the car at the time? Mason asked.
I was not driving the car, she said. I was in the car behind the steering wheel. I started the car, then I asked Carleton where his coat was. He had forgotten and left it in the house. I told him to go and get it. While he was in the house getting the coat I took occasion to untie the box.
The box was tied up?
Yes.
What was it tied with?
Some sort of a cord. I think it was a piece of fish line.
And you looked inside the box?
I did.
And then tied it up again?
Yes.
And from there, where did you drive?
Directly to the office.
Why did you go to the office?
I knew that the defendant intended to be there and I wanted to ask her to keep an eye on Carleton while I did some personal errands. I asked her to do that as a favor to me.
And she consented?
Yes.
Now, is there any chance that the shoe box could have been substituted at any time?
Not before we got to the office, no, sir. Carleton had that same shoe box with him and took it into the office. Any substitution would necessarily have been made by the defendant.
Thats all, Mason said.
Call Frank Golden, Flanders said.
Golden was sworn and gave his occupation as proprietor of a branch of the We Rent M Car Company.
Directing your attention to Sunday, the fourth of this month, did you see the defendant?
I did.
Did you have any conversation with her?
Yes.
And did you complete any transaction with her?
Yes.
What was the transaction?
I rented her one of our units, a car designated on our books as Car Number 19.
What time did you rent that car to her?
At six thirty.
And did she return it to you?
Yes.
At what time?
Our records show that it was eight fifteen.
And that car was designated on your books as Car Number 19?
Yes.
Is there a number painted on that car?
There is. It is rather inconspicuous but it has a painted figure of Number 19.
Later on that evening did you have occasion to rent that car to anyone else?
Yes.
Who?
To Mr. Perry Mason, the attorney for the defendant.
What time was that?
Just before I was closing. Sometime around oh, a few minutes before eleven. I put it on the books as ten-thirty because thats the official time of closing.
When you saw the defendant how was she dressed?
She was wearing a raincoat, a sweater, slacks, and a mans hat; a broadbrimmed hat that was pulled down over her eyes. I thought at first she was a man but after she talked with me I saw, of course, she was a woman. And then of course I identified her from her drivers license.
She showed you her drivers license?
Yes. Thats necessary in order to rent a car.
And your records show the name on that drivers license?
Yes, sir. The name of Susan Fisher, the defendant in this case.
When did you finally get the car back again?
It was on the afternoon of the fifth. It was returned by the police. I was notified that the police had taken possession of the car.
Thats all. You may inquire, Flanders said.
No questions.
Call Myrton Abert, Flanders said.
Myrton Abert gave his address and occupation and testified that after midnight, Sunday, at an hour around 12:30 to 1 oclock Monday morning, he had been called by Perry Mason and Paul Drake to take fingerprints from a car; that he had noted the license number of the car and also the number 19 painted in an inconspicuous place. That he had lifted a series of fingerprints and delivered them to Perry Mason; that he had stipulated, however, that in the event the car was concerned in any crime he would make the information available to the police and that he had taken photographs of the fingerprints; that those photographs had been turned over to the police; but that prior to the time they had been turned over to the police, the police had appeared with a set of fingerprints purporting to come from Ken Lowry, the decedent, and that one of those fingerprints that of the right middle finger coincided with a latent print which had been lifted from the automobile on the back of the rearview mirror; that the witness was a fingerprint identification expert and had made the identification; that there could be no question that this print had been made by the middle finger of the right hand of the decedent.