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.