The Case of the Golddigger’s Purse

John Nelson was next called to the stand. He gave his occupation as a banker, stated that he had known Harrington Faulkner in his lifetime; that on the afternoon of the day on which Faulkner was murdered he had been at the bank when Mr. Faulkner had telephoned, stating that he desired rather a large sum of money in cash; that shortly after the telephone call had been received, Faulkner had shown up, had been admitted to the bank through the side door, and had asked for twenty-five thousand dollars in cash, which he had withdrawn from his checking account. It was, he explained, his individual account, not the account of Faulkner and Carson, Incorporated. The withdrawal had left Mr. Faulkner with less than five thousand dollars to his credit in his personal account.

Nelson had decided it would be a good plan to take the numbers of the bills, inasmuch as Faulkner had asked for twenty thousand dollars in one-thousand dollar bills, for two thousand dollars in one-hundred-dollar bills, and for three thousand dollars in fifty-dollar bills. Nelson testified that he had called one of the assistant tellers, and, together, they had managed to list all of the numbers on the bills while they kept Mr. Faulkner waiting. Then the money had been turned over to Mr. Faulkner and he had placed it in a satchel.

Quite calmly and casually, Medford called for the list of numbers on the bills and that list was received in evidence. Then Medford produced a leather satchel and asked Nelson if he had ever seen it before.

“I have,” Nelson said.

“When?”

“At the time and place I have referred to. That was the satchel which Mr. Faulkner carried with him to the bank.”

“The satchel in which the twenty-five thousand dollars in cash was placed?”

“That’s right.”

“Are you certain that is the identical satchel?”

“Quite certain.”

“You may cross-examine,” Medford said to Mason.

“How do you know it’s the same satchel?” Mason asked.

“I noticed it particularly when I put the money in it.”

“You put the money in it?”

“Yes. Mr. Faulkner raised it to the little shelf in front of the cashier’s window. I unlocked the wicket, swung it back on its hinges and personally placed the twenty-five thousand dollars in the satchel. And at that time, I noticed a peculiar tear in the leather pocket on the inside lining of the satchel. If you’ll notice, Mr. Mason, you’ll see for yourself that that tear is still there. It’s a rather peculiar, jagged, irregular tear.”

“And you identify the satchel from that?” Mason asked.

“I do.”

“That’s all,” Mason said.

Sergeant Dorset was the next man on the witness stand. He testified to the conditions he had found at Faulkner’s house when he arrived, the position of the body, the discovery of the satchel under the bed in the bedroom, the place where Faulkner’s coat, shirt and tie had been found tossed carelessly on a chair, the safety razor on the shelf, still uncleaned, with the lather and hairs still adhering to the blade. The lather was partially dry, which, in his opinion, indicated that it had been “some three or four hours” since the razor had been used. The face of the corpse was smooth-shaven.

Medford desired to know whether Sergeant Dorset had seen the defendant there.

“I did, yes, sir.”

“Did you talk with her?”

“I did.”

“Did she accompany you upon any trip?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Where did she go?”

“To the residence of one James L. Staunton.”

“That was at your request?”

“It was.”

“Did she make any objection?”

“No, sir.”

“Was there a fingerprint expert present in the Faulkner house?”

“There was.”

“What was his name?”

“Detective Louis C. Corning.”

“Did he examine certain articles for fingerprints under your direction and supervision and in accordance with your instructions?”

“He did.”

“You may take the witness,” Medford said to Perry Mason.

“Just how did Mr. Corning examine the fingerprints?”

“Why, through a magnifying glass, I presume.”

“No. That isn’t what I meant. What method did he use in perpetuating the evidence? Were the fingerprints developed and then photographed?”

“No. We used the lifting method.”

“Just what do you mean by that?”

“We dusted certain objects to develop latent fingerprints, and then placed adhesive over the fingerprints, lifting the entire fingerprints from the object, then covering the adhesive with a transparent substance so that the fingerprints could be perpetuated and examined in detail.”

“Who has the custody of those fingerprints?”

“Mr. Corning.”

“And he has had such custody ever since the night of the murder?”

“To the best of my belief, he has. However, I understand he’s going to be a witness, and you can ask him about that.”

“The method of perpetuating the fingerprints was suggested by you?”

“It was.”

“Don’t you consider that rather a poor method to use?”

“What other method would you have preferred, Mr. Mason?”