“Why?”
“Simply because I wanted to see Mr. Cullens without having anyone else present.”
“You operate a gambling establishment in connection with your restaurant?” Mason asked.
Sampson was on his feet. “Your Honor,” he said, “that is objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. It is improper cross-examination it is an attempt to discredit the witness in the eyes of the jury by submitting him to...”
“The objection is sustained,” Judge Barnes interrupted to rule.
Mason smiled, and said, “I’ll reframe the question. Your Honor. Mr. Golding, isn’t it a fact that earlier in the evening Mr. Cullens had advised you that George Trent had pledged certain diamonds with you to cover a financial loss which he had incurred at the gambling tables in your establishment at The Golden Platter?”
“Your Honor,” Sampson said, “I object to this question, and I assign the asking of it as misconduct. I suggest that counsel be admonished by the Court. The Court has already ruled that...”
“The Court has ruled nothing of the sort,” Judge Barnes said. “The first question might have been considered as an attempt to embarrass the witness by casting reflections upon his character in connection with an extraneous matter. As the present question is worded, it relates entirely to a conversation which took place between Mr. Cullens and this witness on the night of the murder. The witness has already testified that he saw Cullens at that time, and counsel has a right on cross-examination to go into what was said, insofar as it may have any bearing on the present case. The objection is overruled, the witness will answer the question.”
Sampson slowly sat down. Golding, with his face calmly expressionless, said, “That is substantially correct, sir.”
“And George Trent had lost money over your gambling tables at The Golden Platter?”