He was out of breath when he dropped into his chair in the jury box, expecting and dreading a rebuke from the Court for his tardiness. He glanced at Miss Alexandra Hildebrand, almost apologetically. It certainly was not relief that he felt on discovering that she was paying no attention whatever to him. She was engaged in consultation with the two lawyers and did not even so much as glance in his direction when he popped into his seat.
The justice was still on his good behaviour. He bowed politely to Sampson and then looked at the clock.
The cross-examination of Mr. Stevens began. Sampson was agreeably surprised by the astuteness, the suavity, the unexpected resourcefulness of Mr. O'Brien, who questioned the witness.
“You say, Mr. Stevens, that James Hildebrand, Jr., retired from the company about two years prior to the retirement of his father, the defendant. Why did the younger Hildebrand retire?”
“He was not satisfied with the reorganisation.”
“Isn't it true that you and he were not on friendly terms and that he refused to serve with you—”
“We object!” interrupted the district attorney. “The question is not—”
“Objection overruled,” said the Court testily. “Finish your question, Mr. O'Brien, and then answer it, Mr. Witness.”
“We were not on friendly terms,” admitted Mr. Stevens, who looked vaguely surprised on being addressed as “Mr. Witness.”
“And he preferred to get out of the company rather than to serve on the board with you? Isn't that true?”