The Case of the Shoplifter's Shoe

If you think that malls were invented in our times, you will be surprised - department stores used to have restaurants (or tea rooms) in them since at least the 30s. And when Della and Perry are caught in the rain, they decide to eat their lunch in one of them. Of course, they manage to meet some interesting people and get in the a middle of a bit of a legal issue (no bodies this time) and at the end they end up with a new client.

One of the women they met in the store, the young niece Virginia, comes to Mason's office the next day with a story of diamonds and a missing person. The case does not seem to match what Mason usually handles - until some bodies start showing up. Add a gun, a mysterious owner of the diamonds and Sergeant show more Holcomb, who being his usual gruff self almost makes the case for Mason and bloody shoes and there are too many things pointing to the wrong people.

The novel ends up with one of those powerful courtroom scenes that Gardner excels at. It makes it a stronger novel although I missed the usual sleuthing - in order to have the last scenes, some of it had to be shorter. show less

This was actually one of his better contrived plots, a better whodunit than some. And I love the 30's era patter -- "mighty white of you," one of the characters actually says. Not PC, but gives such a flavor of the time.

Published in 1938 - so occasional statements that we now find offensive.

As the first big drops of rain splashed to the sidewalk, Perry Mason cupped his hand under Della Street's elbow and said, "We can make it to the department store if we run." She nodded, held up her skirt with her left hand, and ran lightly, her weight forward on the balls of her feet, her stride long and easy, with lots of knee action Perry Mason, long-legged as he was, did not have to hold back on her account.

I haven't read one of these for years (decades?). This started off well, but I lost interest a bit, partly because I didn't warm to any of the characters. Perry Mason's performance in court relied on a quite technical explanation of how you determine a particular gun fired a particular bullet, which I also found a bit lacking in human interest.

Sarah Breel is observed by Perry Mason to be shoplifting. When she is about to be arrested by a security guard, Mason intervenes and prevents the arrest. Later that day, Sarah is accused of the murder of her brother's associate in trading in diamonds. Sarah claims no memory of any of the events that surround the shooting even though her presence is known because as she fled the scene she was hit by a car and suffered a concussion.

Mason uses his usual court room tricks to unravel the prosecutor's steel tight case by casting doubt on a police officer's testimony about whether or not he mixed up the bullets from two guns and two different murders as well as suggesting there were two other people including Sarah's niece who could have show more committed the crimes.

At the conclusion of the novel, we learn who shot the crooked diamond dealer but the court and the police do not since it was Sarah's niece who killed him in self defense and in Mason's opinion it would be very difficult to defend as she shot the man in his own house. show less

Good mystery but not my favorite of the series so far by far.

"I'm running my investigation," Sergeant Holcomb said.

"Moreover." Mason went on smoothly, "if you neglect this end of it, and the charge should be made that the officers are deliberately overlooking that angle because it suited their policy to close their eyes to a gambling establishment running wide open, don’t you think…"

"Who says there's a gambling establishment there?” Sergeant Holcomb demanded belligerently.

"I do," Mason told him. "Now, what are you going to do about it?"

Sergeant Holcomb thought for a minute and said, "I'm going to make it my business to investigate it."