Donald Woods' portrayal of Perry Mason is the best of the 1930s movies and the one that is closest to the Mason character from the books and the Burr t.v. series. This doesn't make it the only or most entertaining of the Mason movies - the William movies are more fun, if much less accurate. A Bishop from Australia asks Mason to investigate an over 20 year old case of an accusation of manslaughter, a charge that the Bishop says the woman accused of did not do. The plot quickly moves to a question of "who is really the granddaughter of the wealthy (and arrogant and nasty) Renald Brownley?" There are two claimants. On the plus side for this movie are that, for the first time in this movie series, Paul Drake (played by Joseph Crehan) is not a doofus, but actually a competent private detective, Tom Kennedy is his usual dim, but funny detective (in this case a house detective who works part time for Mason and actually helps solve the case), and Donald Woods characterization is serious but still has a lightheartedness about it that makes the character so likable. On the negative side is that Ann Dvorak, a gifted actress, is absolutely wasted in the role of Della Street. It's not a negative for me that the plot was somewhat convoluted and certain plot elements laughable because the movie was still entertaining and well worth viewing, especially by Perry Mason fans - even though there is only one Perry Mason - Raymond Burr, of course.

I missed the beginning of this movie. I enjoyed Perry Mason with Raymond Burr while growing up, so I was fan of enchanted to stumble upon this movie, which I also learned is part of a series that I will now look for. I watched this on TCM. Missing the beginning scenes might be why I was left confused & missed the point of the title. One really needs to pay close attention or you'll not be able to follow it very well & I sure missed something as I was left wondering where the real Janice was - or did the fake Janice also turn out to be the real one?But one thing I didn't miss was was a production goof in which the courtroom chairs & defendant's table are suddenly empty in the midst of Mason's cross of Brownings grandson! As the camera pans back & forth from Perry to the grandson, those chairs & table are filled with people, only to become empty, then fill up again! And that scene lasts for several seconds. Quite funny!

This really isn't a particularly exciting or even entertaining story, but to be honest I only watched it strictly out of curiosity. I belong to a generation that only knows Raymond Burr as Perry Mason - and only in syndication, since the series was on the air several years before my time. Even in syndication, I never made a habit of watching the show, but I caught enough episodes that I associate Raymond Burr with the part, so I was curious as to how well another actor would work in the role.In this case, the other actor was Donald Woods, with whom I'm slightly familiar. He was quite passable in the role - not especially exciting (as fits the story to be honest) and very different than Burr, but passable. All the normal characters are there. Ann Dvorak was quite good as Della Street, Joseph Crehan as Paul Drake and Charles Wilson as Hamilton Burger. Like the TV series, Perry really acts more like a detective than a lawyer, and the courtroom scenes are restricted to the last 20 minutes or so of the movie and they move at quite a frenetic pace. The story itself is confusing. It deals with Mason being asked by an Australian bishop to help defend a woman accused of manslaughter many years before. The bishop then basically disappears from the story so the title is somewhat misleading, and there's questions about an inheritance and another murder. The whole thing becomes very complicated to be honest, which makes it less compelling.Having said that, it's worth watching for a look at "early" Perry Mason, and has definite value as a curiosity on that basis. (6/10)

You can often tell when a studio is losing interest in a film series when they start replacing the entire cast. In this instance, they did it twice in 2 films-- and by the time of THE CASE OF THE STUTTERING BISHOP, we'd not only seen 3 Perry Masons in 6 films, but 5 different Della Streets! Donald Woods does his 2nd PM film, having played one of the suspects in ...THE CURIOUS BRIDE, while William Clemens directs his 2nd PM film, having already done the relatively sober ...VELVET CLAWS. Clemens would go onto quite a few series films, including a Torchy Blane, 4 Nancy Drews, a Dead Ends Kids, a Philo Vance, and 3 Falcons. There's nothing especially flashy or stylish about this film, and it starts out very confusing, but it is a solid mystery film, and gets better as it goes.For example, you have the boastful house detective who Perry winds up hiring part-time, and as the story goes on he proves to be genuinely helpful, rather than "merely" comic relief. It seems the murder takes forever to happen in this one, but once it does, the story FINALLY kicks into gear, and the courtroom sequence at the end is probably the BEST in all 6 films. Unlike when Perry rattled off confusing info nobody but HE knew in the previous installment, the quick stream of witness testimonies actually help to pull all the threads of the story together neatly. And at last, there's the patented "blurted out confession" seen in so many PM stories-- only in this case, NOT from the person being grilled on the stand.It's been said that sometimes casting actors very accurate to novels can lead to dull films. Some of the most popular versions of characters are quite unlike their literary sources-- good examples being Sean Connery's JAMES BOND and Stacy Keach's MIKE HAMMER. In this case, I find myself wishing Warren William had done more films like this one-- his version of Perry might not be thought of as so much of a joke then.