Calamity Town (21 page)

‘The People will prove,' Bradford went on quietly, ‘that James Haight was in desperate need of money, that he demanded large sums of money of his wife while under the influence of liquor and, sensibly, she refused; that James Haight was losing large sums of money gambling; that he was taking other illicit means of procuring money; that upon Nora Haight's death her estate, a large one as the result of an inheritance, would legally fall to the defendant, who is her husband and heir-at-law.

‘The People,' concluded Bradford, in a tone so low he could scarcely be heard, ‘being convinced beyond reasonable doubt that James Haight did so plan and attempt the life of one person in attempting which he succeeded in taking the life of another and innocent victim—the People demand that James Haight pay with his own life for the life taken and the life so nearly taken.' And Carter Bradford sat down to spontaneous applause, which caused the first of Judge Newbold's numerous subsequent warnings to the spectators.

In that long dreary body of testimony calculated to prove Jim Haight's sole Opportunity, the only colorful spots were provided by Judge Eli Martin in cross-examination. From the first the old lawyer's plan was plain to Ellery: to cast doubt, doubt, doubt. Not heatedly. With cool humor. The voice of reason…Insinuate. Imply. Get away with whatever you can, and to hell with the rules of cross-examination. Ellery realized that Judge Martin was desperate.

‘But you can't be
sure?
'

‘N-no.'

‘You didn't have the defendant under observation
every moment?
'

‘Of course not!'

‘The defendant
might
have laid the tray of cocktails down for a moment or so?'

‘No.'

‘Are you
positive
?'

Carter Bradford quietly objects: the question was answered. Sustained. Judge Newbold waves his hand patiently.

‘Did you
see
the defendant prepare the cocktails?'

‘No.'

‘Were you in the living room
all
the time?'

‘You know I was!' This was Frank Lloyd; and he was angry. To Frank Lloyd, Judge Martin paid special attention. The old gentleman wormed out of the newspaper publisher his relationship with the Wright family—his ‘peculiar' relationship with the defendant's wife. He had been in love with her. He had been bitter when she turned him down for James Haight. He had threatened James Haight with bodily violence. Objection, objection, objection. But it managed to come out, enough of it to reawaken in the jury's minds the whole story of Frank Lloyd and Nora Wright—after all, that story was an old one to Wrightsville and everybody knew the details!

So Frank Lloyd became a poor witness for the People, and there was a doubt, a doubt. The vengeful jilted ‘other' man. Who knows? Maybe—

With the Wright family, who were forced to take the stand to testify to the actual events of the night, Judge Martin was impersonal—and cast more doubts. On the ‘facts.' Nobody actually
saw
Jim Haight drop arsenic into the cocktail. Nobody could be sure…of anything.

But the prosecution's case proceeded and, despite Judge Martin's wily obstructions, Bradford established: that Jim alone mixed the cocktails; that Jim was the only one who could have been certain the poisoned cocktail went to Nora, his intended victim, since he handed each drinker his or her cocktail; that Jim pressed Nora to drink when she was reluctant.

And the testimony of old Wentworth, who had been the attorney for John F.'s father. Wentworth had drawn the dead man's will. Wentworth testified that on Nora's marriage she received her grandfather's bequest of a hundred thousand dollars, held in trust for her until that ‘happy' event.

And the testimony of the five handwriting experts, who agreed unanimously, despite the most vigorous cross-examination by Judge Martin, that the three unmailed letters addressed to Rosemary Haight, dated Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's, and announcing far in advance of those dates the ‘illness' of Nora Haight, the third actually announcing her ‘death'—agreed unanimously that these damning letters were in the handwriting of the defendant, beyond any doubt whatever. For several days the trial limped and lagged while huge charts were set up in the courtroom and Judge Martin, who had obviously boned up, debated the finer points of handwriting analysis with the experts…unsuccessfully.

Then came Alberta Manaskas, who turned out a staunch defender of the public weal. Alberta evinced an unsuspected volubility. And, to judge from her testimony, her eyes, which had always seemed dull, were sharper than a cosmic ray; and her ears, which had merely seemed large and red, were more sensitive than a photoelectric cell. It was through Alberta that Carter Bradford brought out how, as the first letter had predicted, Nora took sick on Thanksgiving day; how Nora had another, and worse, attack of ‘sickness' on Christmas Day. Alberta went into clinical detail about these ‘sicknesses.'

Judge Martin rose to his opportunity. Sickness, Alberta? Now what kind of sickness would you say Miss Nora had on Thanksgiving and Christmas?

Sick! Like in her belly.
(Laughter.)

Have
you
ever been sick like in your—uh—belly, Alberta? Sure! You, me, everyone. (
Judge Newbold raps for order
.)

Like Miss Nora?

Sure!

(Gently): You've
never been poisoned by arsenic, though, have you, Alberta?

Bradford, on his feet. Judge Martin sat down smiling. Mr Queen noticed the sweat fringing his forehead.

Dr Milo Willoughby's testimony, confirmed by the testimony of Coroner Chic Salemson and the testimony of L.D. (‘Whitey') Magill, State Chemist, established that the toxic agent which had made Nora Haight ill, and caused the death of Rosemary Haight, was arsenious acid, or arsenic trioxid, or arsenious oxid, or simply ‘white arsenic'—all names for the same deadly substance. Henceforth prosecutor and defense counsel referred to it simply as ‘arsenic.'

Dr Magill described the substance as ‘colorless, tasteless, and odorless in solution, and of a high degree of toxicity.'

Q. (by Prosecutor Bradford)
—It is a powder, Dr Magill?
A
.—Yes, sir.

Q
.—Would it dissolve in a cocktail, or lose any of its effectiveness if taken that way?
A
.—Arsenic trioxid is very slightly soluble in alcohol, but since a cocktail is greatly aqueous it will dissolve quite readily. It is soluble in water, you see. No, it would lose none of its toxicity in alcohol.

Q
.—Thank you, Dr Magill. Your Witness, Judge Martin.

Judge Martin waives cross-examination.

Prosecutor Bradford calls to the stand Myron Garback, proprietor of the High Village Pharmacy, Wrightsville. Mr Garback has a cold; his nose is red and swollen. He sneezes frequently and fidgets in the witness chair. From the audience Mrs Garback, a pale Irishwoman, watches her husband anxiously. Being duly sworn, Myron Garback testifies that ‘sometime' during October of 1940—the previous October—James Haight had entered the High Village Pharmacy and asked for ‘a small tin of Quicko.'

Q
.—What exactly is Quicko, Mr Garback?
A
.—It is a preparation used for the extermination of rodents and insect pests.

Q
.—What is the lethal ingredient of Quicko?
A
.—Arsenic trioxid.
(Sneeze. Laughter. Gavel.)

Mrs Garback turns crimson and glares balefully about.

Q
.—In highly concentrated form?
A
.—Yes, sir.

Q
.—Did you sell the defendant a tin of this poisonous preparation, Mr Garback?
A
.—Yes, sir. It is a commercial preparation, requiring no prescription.

Q
.—Did the defendant ever return to purchase more Quicko?
A
.—Yes, sir, about two weeks later. He said he'd mislaid the can of stuff, so he'd have to buy a new can. I sold him a new can.

Q
.—Did the defendant—I'll rephrase the question. What did the defendant say to you, and what did you say to the defendant, on the occasion of his first purchase?
A
.—Mr Haight said there were mice in his house, and he wanted to kill them off. I said I was surprised, because I'd never heard of house mice up on the Hill. He didn't say anything to that.

Cross-examination by Judge Eli Martin:—

Q
.—Mr Garback, how many tins of Quicko would you estimate you sold during the month of October last?
A
.—That's hard to answer. A lot. It's my best-selling rat-killer, and Low Village is infested.

Q
.—Twenty-five? Fifty?
A
.—Somewhere around there.

Q
.—Then it's not unusual for customers to buy this poisonous preparation—purely to kill rats?
A
.—No, sir, not unusual at all.

Q
.—Then how is it you remembered that Mr Haight purchased some—remembered it
for five months? A
.—It just stuck in my mind. Maybe because he bought two tins so close together, and it was the Hill.

Q
.—You're positive it was two cans, two weeks apart?
A
.—Yes, sir. I wouldn't say it if I wasn't.

Q
.—No comments, please; just answer the question. Mr Garback, do you keep records of your Quicko sales, listed by customer?
A
.—I don't have to, Judge. It's legal to sell—

Q
.—Answer the question, Mr Garback. Have you a written record of James Haight's alleged purchases of Quicko?
A
.—No, sir, but—

Q
.—Then we just have your word, relying on your memory of two incidents you allege to have occurred five months ago, that the defendant purchased Quicko from you?

Prosecutor Bradford:
Your Honor, the witness is under oath. He has answered Counsel's question not once, but several times. Objection.

Judge Newbold:
It seems to me witness has answered, Judge. Sustained.

Q
.—That's all, thank you, Mr Garback.

Alberta Manaskas is recalled to the stand. Questioned by Mr Bradford, she testifies that she ‘never seen no rats in Miss Nora's house.' She further testifies that she ‘never seen no rat-killer, neither.'

On cross-examination, Judge Martin asks Alberta Manaskas if it is not true that in the tool chest in the cellar of the Haight house there is a large rat trap.

A
.—Is there?

Q
.—That's what I'm asking you, Alberta.
A
.—I guess there is, at that.

Q
.—If there are no rats, Alberta, why do you suppose the Haights keep a rat trap?

Prosecutor Bradford:
Objection. Calling for opinion.

Judge Newbold:
Sustained. Counsel, I'll have to ask you to restrict your cross-examination to—

Judge Martin (humbly)
: Yes, Your Honor.

Emmeline DuPré, under oath, testifies that she is a Dramatic and Dancing Teacher residing at Number 468 Hill Drive, Wrightsville, ‘right next door to Nora Wright's house.'

Witness testifies that during the previous November and December she ‘happened to overhear' frequent quarrels between Nora and James Haight. The quarrels were about Mr Haight's heavy drinking and numerous demands for money. There was one markedly violent quarrel, in December, when Miss DuPré heard Nora Haight refuse to give her husband ‘any more money.' Did Miss DuPré ‘happen to overhear' anything to indicate why the defendant needed so much money?

A
.—That's what shocked me so, Mr Bradford—

Q
.—The Court is not interested in your emotional reactions, Miss DuPré. Answer the question, please.
A
.—Jim Haight admitted he'd been gambling, and losing plenty, and that's why he needed money, he said.

Q
.—Was any name or place mentioned by either Mr or Mrs Haight in connection with the defendant's gambling?
A
.—Jim Haight said he'd been losing a lot at the
Hot Spot
, that scandalous place on Route 16—

Judge Martin:
Your Honor, I move that this witness's entire testimony be stricken out. I have no objection to give-and-take in this trial—Mr Bradford has been extremely patient with me, and it is an admittedly difficult case, being so vaguely circumstantial—

Mr Bradford:
May I ask Counsel to restrict his remarks to his objection, and stop trying to influence the jury by characterizing the case?

Judge Newbold:
The Prosecutor is right, Counsel. Now what is your objection to this witness's testimony?

Judge Martin:
No attempt has been made by the People to fix the times and circumstances under which witness allegedly overheard conversations between defendant and wife. Admittedly witness was not present in the same room, or even in the same house. How, then, did she ‘overhear'? How can she be sure the two people
were
the defendant and his wife? Did she see them? Didn't she see them? I hold—

Miss DuPré:
But I heard all this with my own ears!

Judge Newbold:
Miss DuPré! Yes, Mr Bradford?

Mr Bradford:
The People have put Miss DuPré on the stand in an effort to spare defendant's wife the pain of testifying to the quarrels—

Judge Martin:
That's not my point.

Judge Newbold:
No, it is not. Nevertheless, Counsel, I suggest you cover your point in cross-examination. Objection denied. Proceed, Mr Bradford.

Mr Bradford proceeds, eliciting further testimony as to quarrels between Jim and Nora. On cross-examination, Judge Martin reduces Miss DuPré to indignant tears. He brings out her physical position relative to the conversationalists—crouched by her bedroom window in darkness listening to the voices floating warmly across the driveway between her house and the Haight house—confuses her in the matter of dates and times involved, so that she clearly contradicts herself several times. The spectators enjoy themselves.