Mason said, “Well, perhaps I can get at it in another way. I’ll withdraw this witness temporarily and ask that Sergeant Holcomb be called as a witness for the Defense.”
Sergeant Holcomb came belligerently forward, his manner all too plainly indicating that he certainly didn’t intend to be of any assistance to the Defense.
“I will ask you,” Mason said, “if you have located the owner of the jewelry which was found in the bag which it is claimed belonged to the defendant in this case.”
“Objected to,” Sampson said, “as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. It makes no difference who owned the jewelry.”
“But,” Mason said, “I thought it was the contention of the Prosecution that this jewelry had been taken from a chamois-skin belt found on the body of the decedent.”
“There is no such contention,” Sampson said. “The photograph of the body shows the position of the chamois-skin belt and its condition, but beyond a necessary inference, we have made no claim that...”
“I think the necessary inference is there,” Judge Barnes ruled. “The witness sought to make that inference even more pointed. I’m going to permit this question to be answered. Have you ascertained the owner of that jewelry, Sergeant Holcomb?”
“We have,” Sergeant Holcomb said sullenly.
“That jewelry had been stolen?” Mason asked.
“Yes.”