The Case of the Golddigger’s Purse

“That will do,” Judge Summerville rebuked the witness sharply. “The witness will answer counsel’s questions.”

“No, sir. I simply made note of the fact that two live goldfish were in the bathtub and let it go at that.”

“There were goldfish on the floor?”

“Yes.”

“How many?”

“I’m certain I couldn’t say. I think the photograph will show the number.”

“As many as a dozen?”

“I would say somewhere around that number.”

“There was a shaving brush and a razor on the glass shelf above the wash stand?”

“Yes. I have already testified to that.”

“What else was there?”

“There were, I believe, two sixteen ounce bottles of peroxide of hydrogen. One of them was almost empty.”

“Anything else?”

“No, sir.”

“Now, what did you notice on the floor?”

“There were pieces of broken glass.”

“Did you make an examination of those pieces of broken glass to determine if they had any pattern or if they had been originally a part of some glass object?”

“I didn’t personally. I believe at a later date Lieutenant Tragg caused all of those pieces to be assembled and had them fitted together so that they formed a rather large curved goldfish bowl.”

“You say that there was a checkbook on the floor?”

“There was.”

“Near the body of the murdered man?”

“Quite near.”

“Can you describe its appearance?”

Medford said, “Your Honor, I intended to introduce this checkbook in evidence by another witness, but if counsel wants to examine this witness about it, I’ll introduce it right now.”

Medford produced the checkbook, Sergeant Dorset identified it, and it was received in evidence.

“Calling your attention,” Medford said to Judge Summerville, “to the fact that the last check stub in the book — that is the last one from which the corresponding check has been torn away along the perforated line, is a check stub bearing the same date as the day of the murder, with an amount of one thousand dollars written in the upper right-hand corner, and in the body of the stub a portion of a name has been written. The first name is completely written and the last name has been unfinished. Only the first three letters of that name appear. They are ‘G-r-i.’ ”

Judge Summerville examined the check stub with keen interest.

“Very well, this will be received in evidence.”

“Were any of the goldfish on the floor alive when you entered the room?” Mason asked Sergeant Dorset.

“No.”

Mason said, “For your information, Sergeant, I will state that I noticed motion on the part of one of the goldfish when I entered the room — and I was, I believe, in the room some ten or fifteen minutes before the police arrived. I placed that goldfish in the bathtub and apparently it resumed life.”

“That, of course, was something you had no right to do,” Sergeant Dorset said.

“You made no test to ascertain whether there was some life on the part of any of the other goldfish?”

“I didn’t apply a stethoscope to them,” Dorset said sarcastically.

“Now then, you have stated that you asked the defendant to accompany you to the home of James L. Staunton?”

“I did, yes, sir.”

“You had some conversation with Mr. Staunton there?”

“Yes.”

“And Mr. Staunton gave you a statement purporting to bear the signature of Harrington Faulkner, the deceased?”

“He did.”

Medford said, “Your Honor, I don’t want to seem technical, but after all, this is a preliminary examination. The purpose of it is to determine whether there is reasonable ground to believe the defendant murdered Harrington Faulkner. If there is, the Court should bind her over to answer. If there isn’t, the Court should dismiss her. I think that we have plenty of evidence to establish our case without carrying the inquiry far afield. These matters are entirely extraneous. They have nothing whatever to do with the murder.”

“How do you know they have nothing to do with the murder?” Mason asked.

“Well, I will put it this way,” Medford said. “They have nothing to do with our case. We can establish our case by an irrefutable chain of evidence without dragging in all of this extraneous stuff.”

Mason said, “Your Honor, I understand the law and I know the Court does, but I submit to the Court that under the circumstances of this case and in view of the very apparent mystery which surrounds the case, I should be permitted to show all of the surrounding circumstances which I contend played an important part in connection with the murder of Harrington Faulkner. I know that the Court doesn’t want to hold this young woman over for trial if she is in fact innocent, regardless of the fact that it might be possible for the prosecution to establish a technical case. I also know that the Court is anxious to see that the real murderer is apprehended in the event this young woman should actually be innocent. Therefore, I submit to your Honor that it is better at this time, in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, to let all of the facts come into the record.”