"That is right," Judge Keyser said. "Do you have any further questions on cross-examination, Mr. Mason?"

"I have several questions," Mason said.

"In that case," Hamilton Burger said, "I will ask permission of the Court to withdraw Mr. Redfield temporarily so that I may put on another witness who will, I believe, connect up the revolver, Exhibit B, in such a way that certain matters will be clarified. This is testimony which I am particularly anxious to introduce this afternoon."

"I have no objection," Mason said. "I would, in fact, prefer to defer my cross-examination of Mr. Redfield until this additional evidence is before the Court."

"Very well," Judge Keyser said. "So ordered. Go ahead, bring on your other witnesses, Mr. District Attorney."

Hamilton Burger said, "I call Darwin C. Gowrie to the stand."

An officer opened the door of the witness room, and Gowrie stepped into the room.

"Come forward and be sworn, Mr. Gowrie," Hamilton Burger said.

Gowrie held up his hand and was sworn.

"You are now and for some years past have been an attorney at law, practicing in the court of this state?"

"That is correct."

"I will ask you if you are acquainted with Perry Mason, the attorney for the defense?"

"I am."

"I will ask you if, on the ninth of this month, you had a conversation with Perry Mason over the telephone?"

"I did."

"At that time did Mr. Mason make some statements to you concerning certain unusual decisions in murder cases?"

"He did."

"What was the conversation?"

"Now, just a minute," Judge Keyser said. "I notice there is no objection on the part of the defense, but the Court hardly sees the relevancy of this."

"If the Court please," Hamilton Burger said, "I propose to connect this up. It is an important point in the prosecution's case which I wish to make."

"As part of a preliminary examination?" Judge Keyser asked.

"Exactly, Your Honor," Hamilton Burger said. "Without wishing to engage in personalities, I wish to state as an officer of this court that in the past I have felt there have been cases where defense counsel has gone far beyond the bounds of propriety in representing clients accused of crime. I may state to the Court that in several of those cases an investigation would have been made and disciplinary action quite possibly taken, only, as it happened, because of somewhat spectacular and highly dramatic developments, it turned out that the wrong person was being prosecuted for crime. Under those circ.u.mstances it was felt that an investigation would hardly be worth while.

"However, in the present case evidence is at hand which shows at least by inference exactly what happened, and we consider this evidence equally as important as evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime. I may state that before we are finished with this evidence, we are going to show unmistakably a link which implicates counsel for the defense in this case, not as an attorney engaging in unethical methods, but as an actual accomplice--an accessory after the fact."

"Now, just a minute," Judge Keyser said. "That statement, Mr. District Attorney, will of course be widely publicized. The Court feels that it was unnecessary for you to make such a statement at this time."

"I merely wanted the Court to understand my position.,'

"Very well," Judge Keyser said, "the statement has been made now and it cannot be recalled. If the Court had had any idea of what you had in mind, the Court would have intervened and prevented the making of such statements. The Court was only asking you whether this proof was pertinent."

"It is pertinent. I wanted to show the Court how it was to be connected up."

"Very well, go ahead," Judge Keyser said. "I may state, however, Mr. District Attorney, that in the event the proof falls short of your statement, the Court will consider the making of such statement at this time as serious misconduct, perhaps amounting to a contempt of court."

"I am quite aware of the entire possibilities of the situation," Hamilton Burger said, "and I made my statement knowingly and after having given it careful thought. If I don't prove my point, I will willingly answer to charges of contempt."

"Very well, go ahead."

Hamilton Burger turned to the witness.

"Did you make notes of the conversation you had with Perry Mason?"

"Yes, sir."

"Why, may I ask?"

"Because the conversation was exceedingly unusual and very interesting as far as an attorney is concerned."

"What was the nature of that conversation?"

"Mr. Mason told me about certain legal points which were startlingly unusual and which he had investigated from time to time."

"What was the nature of the conversation in regard to those legal points?"

"Well, it came up because Mr. Mason had suggested to a client of mine that community property which had been lost in a gambling game could be recovered by the other spouse and restored to the community. It was a remarkably unusual doctrine, and I wanted to check with Mr. Mason to make certain I had not misunderstood him."

"Was there any other conversation?"

"Yes."

"Go ahead and relate the conversation."

"Well, Mr. Mason told me he hadn't been misunderstood, he confirmed a citation which certainly lays down a rather remarkable rule of law in regard to gambling."

"And then?" Hamilton Burger asked.

"Then he went on to tell me that he had a file which he kept of unusual decisions."

"Did he make a point in regard to murder?"

"Yes. He said that there were decisions to the effect that if a person fired a fatal bullet into a victim, that is, a bullet which would necessarily cause death, and then, before the victim actually expired, another individual fired a second bullet which resulted in death, the person firing the first bullet was not guilty of murder."

"Did he cite decisions?"

"He did. I made a note of those decisions because I was greatly interested."

"Now then, can you give us the time of the conversation as well as the date?"

"Yes, it happens that I can because my office keeps a note of the numbers that I call and the time consumed in conversation. I found that I was spending a great deal of my time in telephone consultations for which we were making no charge and--"

"Nevet mind that," Hamilton Burger said. "I am asking if you can give the exact date and the exact time, and your answer was in the affirmative. Now, will you tell us the date and the time?"

"The call was made at nine-thirty on the morning of the ninth."

"Will you please give us the references Mr. Mason gave you at that time?"

"He referred to Dempsey versus State, 83 Ark. 81, 102 S.W. 704; People versus Ah Fat, 48 Cal. 6i; Duque versus State, 56 Tex. Cr. 214; i19 S.W. 687."

"Cross-examine," Hamilton Burger said to Mason.

"How did you know you were talking with me on the telephone?" Mason asked.

"I called your office number, I asked the person answering the phone to have Mr. Mason put on the line, and you came on the line."

"You recognized my voice?"

"At the time, no. I had not heard your voice. Since then I have heard your voice and know that you were the party to whom I was talking over the telephone."

"You don't know where I was when I answered that telephone--that is, you don't know whether I was in my private office, in the reception room, in the law library or where I was."

"No, sir."

"And you don't know whether I was alone or whether anyone was with me."

"No, sir, I don't know."

"That's all," Mason said. "I have no further questions."

"Call your next witness," Judge Keyser said grimly.

"Call Lieutenant Tragg," Hamilton Burger said.

Lt. Tragg emerged from the witness room and took the stand.

"You took the defendant into custody on Thursday, the eleventh, Lieutenant?"

"I did."

"You had a warrant?"

"Yes."

"A search warrant?"

"Yes."

"Did you find a revolver in her possession?"

"Yes."

"Describe it, please."

"It was a Smith and Wesson .38-caliber police model with a two-and-a-half-inch barrel, blued steel, number i 33347."

"I call your attention to People's Exhibit B and ask you if you have seen that gun before."

"I have. It is the gun I found in the possession of the defendant."

"Did you find any paper in her possession?"

"I did. I found this memo taken in shorthand. I can read the shorthand notes. They say 'Murder cannot be proven if two guns used in crime inflicting equally fatal wounds at different times, Dempsey versus State, 83 Ark. 8i, 102 S.W. 704; People versus Ah Fat, 48 Cal. 61; Duque versus State, 56 Tex. Cr. 214, 1 19 S.W. 687.'"

Hamilton Burger said, "I ask that this note be marked for identification as People's Exhibit G. I wish to keep the intervening letters free for other firearm exhibits so they may be in order. Presently I shall show this note is in the defendant's handwriting."

"No objections," Mason said.

"Cross-examine," Burger snapped.

"No questions," Mason said.

"Call Loring Crowder," Hamilton Burger said.

Once more the door of the witness room opened, and a well-groomed, rather chunky man in his late forties entered the courtroom, held up his hand, was sworn, took his seat in the witness chair, turned to Hamilton Burger.

"Your name is Loring Crowder," Hamilton Burger said. "You are engaged in the retail liquor business, Mr. Crowder?"

"That is right."

"I'm going to show you a gun, Exhibit B in this case, numbered 133347, and ask you if you have ever seen that gun before."

Crowder took the gun, turned it over, looked at the numbers, said, "May I consult a memoranda?"

"You may," Hamilton Burger said, "if you will first tell us what it is."

"It is a notebook containing the number of a gun which I purchased from the Valleyview Hardware and Sporting Goods Store."

"Go ahead, consult the notebook," Hamilton Burger said.

Crowder looked at the notebook, then at the gun, said, "This is the same gun. I bought this gun about two and a half years ago from the store mentioned. I bought it to keep in my place of business."

"And what did you do with it?"

"I gave it to a friend about a year ago."

"Who was the friend?"

Crowder said, "I gave this gun to my friend, George Spencer Ranger. Mr. Ranger was having troubles and--"