The Case of the Mischievous Doll

“Yes, I did. I told them that was Dorrie Ambler that they had in the show-up box and then they convinced me—”

“Never mind what they convinced you about,” Mason said. “I’m just trying to find out what happened. Did you identify the woman in the show-up box as being Dorrie Ambler?”

“At first I did. Yes.”

“Oh, you made two identifications?”

“Well, they told me that— Well, if I’m not allowed to say what they told me I... Well, first I identified her as Dorrie Ambler and then I identified her as Minerva Minden.”

“Despite the fact you had never seen Minerva Minden?”

“I had seen her picture.”

“Where?”

“In the newspapers. That was how it happened that the police called on me in the first place.”

“How did they know you had seen her picture in the papers?”

“I rang them up and told them that the picture in the paper of Minerva Minden was actually the picture of Dorrie Ambler who had rented the apartment from me.”

“So then the police came to talk with you?”

“Yes.”

“When did Dorrie Ambler rent the apartment from you?”

“In May.”

“And how do you know it wasn’t the defendant, Minerva Minden, who rented the apartment from you?”

“Because I didn’t know her at that time. I had never seen her at that time.”

“But you admitted that you couldn’t tell her from Dorrie Ambler.”

“Oh, but I could, Mr. Mason. After I realized the resemblance and studied the defendant, as I told you, I made a second identification. I said after looking more closely, that the woman I had identified as Dorrie Ambler was someone who looked very much like her, but it wasn’t Miss Ambler.”

“At that time you were certain Miss Minden, the defendant, was not the person who had rented the apartment?”

“Absolutely certain.”

“Because of things the police had told you?”

“No. There were other means, other reasons. I convinced myself.”

“Thank you,” Mason said. “No further cross-examination.”

Parma said, “You may step down, Mrs. Dickson.

“Now then, I am going to call Lieutenant Tragg to the stand very briefly, simply for a matter of identification.”

“Very well, Lieutenant Tragg to the stand,” Judge Flint ordered.

Tragg came forward, was sworn, testified that he had gone to Apartment 907 at the Parkhurst Apartments in response to a call, that he had found there a man in a dying condition; that the man was subsequently identified as Marvin Billings, a private detective.

“Now, what happened to Mr. Billings?”

“He died.”

“When?”

“He died on the way to the Receiving Hospital. He was dead on arrival. He had been shot in the chest and that wound proved fatal. That was on the twelfth day of September.”

“And how soon did he leave the apartment after you first saw him? That is, when did the ambulance take him away?”

“Within a matter of ten minutes... well, fifteen minutes at the outside.”

“Thank you,” Parma said. “You may cross-examine.”

“No questions,” Mason said.

“Call Delbert Compton,” Parma said.

Compton, a competent-appearing, heavy-set individual in his early fifties, eased himself into position in the witness chair and surveyed the courtroom with steely, watchful eyes.

“Your name is Delbert Compton, you reside in this city and are now and for some years last past have been the junior partner and manager of the Billings & Compton Detective Agency?”

“Yes, sir.”

“You handle most of the office work, and your partner, Marvin Billings, was in charge of the outside operations?”

“Yes, sir.”

“If the Court please,” Hamilton Burger said, getting to his feet, “I think my associate is a little hesitant about pointing out that this man is a hostile witness. I would like to have the Court rule that he is a hostile witness and give us permission to ask leading questions.”

“He has shown no hostility so far,” Judge Flint said. “When the matter reaches that point, in case it does reach that point, you may then renew your motion. For the present the Court will take it under advisement. Go ahead, Mr. Parma.”

“Were you carrying on your business in this city on the sixth of September?”

“Yes, sir.”

“During the month of September were you employed by the defendant in this case?”

“Well... I suppose so... yes.”

“Who employed you?”

“The defendant’s representative, Henrietta Hull. I believe Mrs. Hull is her manager.”

“And what was the purpose of the employment?”

“I was instructed to put an ad in the paper, an ad asking for unattached women of a certain description.”

“Did you put such an ad in the paper?”

“I did.”

“The compensation was rather high?”

“A thousand dollars a month.”

“Then what did you do?”

“I had one of my female operatives rent a suite in a hotel and interview applicants.”

“And what instructions did you give your female operative?”

“Objected to,” Mason said, “as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, hearsay, a conversation taking place outside of the hearing of the defendant.”

“Sustained,” Judge Flint said.

“All right, I’ll put it this way,” Parma said. “What instructions were you told by Henrietta Hull to give your operative?”

“She didn’t tell me.”

“She didn’t tell you what to do?” Parma asked.