“‘That food should be eaten right away,’ I told him. ‘I heated up the dishes before I left, but carrying it out in the air ain’t helped it none.’ And this guy said, ‘Yeah, I know. On your way, son. We’re busy.’”
“Did you know that man?” Kittering asked.
“I didn’t then. I do now. It was Guy Serle, the man that bought out Conway’s business.”
“You know about Conway’s business?” Kittering asked.
“Uh-huh.”
“What kind of business was it?”
“Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial,” Mason said.
Judge Knox inquired of Kittering, “Is this for the purpose of showing the real identity of the murdered man, counselor?”
“Well, not exactly,” Kittering said, “but for the general purpose of showing the man’s background and...”
“Objection sustained,” Judge Knox said. “You can introduce evidence tending to prove the man’s identity. You have now introduced proof that the decedent was John Milicant, that he was also known as L. C. Conway, or Louie Conway. There has been some evidence concerning a Bill Hogarty, but so far there has been no evidence definitely establishing that the decedent and Bill Hogarty were one and the same. The court will give you every latitude in the matter, Mr. Deputy District Attorney, but in the face of objection, where there is no question of proving motive, malice, or opportunity by that line of interrogation, the court will not permit a collateral examination into the business affairs of the decedent. That, of course, is a general ruling. It may well be that, as your case opens up, the evidence will become pertinent. If you wish to connect it up, the court will receive it on your statement that it will be connected up and that it relates to some particular aspect of the case which it is incumbent upon the state to prove.”