The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, July 27, 1895, Page 14

14 THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, SATURDAY, JULY 27, 1895. AWILLING WITNESS N DURRANT'S BEHALF. Charles H. Clark Sends a Telegram From Boston. HE KENEW MISS LAMONT. Saw Her on April 3 With a Young Man Other Than the Accused. QUESTIONING THE TALESMEN. frwin J. Truman and Thomas W. Selberlich Sworn to Try the Case. THE DURRANT CASE IN A MINUTE—BRIEF R IEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS. Counsel for Durrent disclosed their line of de- fense in open court vesterday. They hope to prove analibi for the accused and have named the man upon whose testimony they mostly rely. He is Charles H. Clark, traveling sales- men for a Boston wine and spirit house. In open court yesterday General Dickinson was handed a telegram from Clark in which the strongest kind of ir were contained. Clark st Valencia-street car, e0ing w noon of April 3 last, about 3:30 o'clock, when he saw Blanche Lamont with & young man, who was not Du nt, on the same car. General Dickinson was somewhat startled et the receipt of the telegram, but atonce grasped its importance. If oung lady was on & Valencia-street ca: another than Durrant, ung ladies of the Normal that they saw him board 2 treet car at 3 o'clock were correct, must have left M place between Clay and Market streeis. Conn- sel for the defenise immediately drew up inter- Togatories to be propounded to Mr. Clark and the court gran order for 4 commission to issue to take his In other way! the case. The chs overraled and telesmen w their qualifications. Twen tioned, many of them ha sgainst capital punishment tial idence, two had been case. The; known banker nnd president of the Civic Federation, and Thomas W. Seiberlich, a shoe manufacturer. ed that he wason a made in panel was ¢ examined &s to ree were ques- g strong views and circumstan- he cepted and sworn to try Court adjourned til] Monday morning, when the examinaijon of talesmen will be resumed. Tue CaLin invites attention toits suc- cinct and distinctive method of reporting the Durrant trial. While this journal may not at all times present as many columns of matter in regard to this case as do some of its contemporaries, pend on finding here every iota of news that is requ to a proper understanding | of the proceedings. | Every step in the lezal battle will be | noted and anaiyzed in an able manner, scientious journalist: v | tions and immaterial answers will be elimi- nated to the end that readers of THE CALL | vill be spared the labor of perusing useless | | columns of unprofitable platitudes. In regard to the moral aspect of the case Tur Cann will exercise that high dis cretion which every reputable jourral considers imperative to guard the clean- liness of its columns. This may be a dis- appointment to some excessively curious minds, and there may be some read- ers who for a time will withdraw their approval, yet we doubt not that their sec- | ond sober thought will cause them to realize the righteousness of TEE CaLvr's | course, and that they will all return to the support of the public journal that is inde- pendent enongh to continue in the path of | duty, regardless of temporary incon- veniences. Of one thing the public will take notice, and that is that Tue Carz’s report wiil be distinctive, and that until you read THE CaLL vou have not secured a complete | view. of the circumstances that go to make the Durrant trial one of the most interest- | ing criminal cases of the century. 1 Busy men and women are particularly | invited to scan the resume of the day’s proceedings thatappears at the head of this column der the capticn of “The Dur- rant Case in a Minute.”” This epitome of the case will be continued from day to day, and those who have but a minute to spare, yet who wish to know the exact truth of ; the day’s proceedings, may turn to THE | CALL and obtain the gistof the news in the | totted sixty seconds. The crush for place at the Durrant trial | yvesterday morning was greater than at! any time since the celebrated case opened. The moment the doors swung on their | hinges all who had excuses sufficient to | pass the deputies crowded in and filled the | seats and benches inside and outside the | bar, many women, and pretty ones, being of the number. The prisoner and his father sat side by side when Judge Murphy | ascended the bench and court was con- | wvened, and all the counsel were waiting and ready to proceed. The court notified the | attorneys that Deputy County Clerk Piper | was present with the list of jurors for which inquiry had been made. At the re- | ?uest of the court Mr. Piper handed the ist of jurors to Mr. Deuprey. “I want to say to the gentlemen of the defense,” said his Honor, “that, as a mat- ter of course, matters concerning the ac- tion of the court in bank are familiar to me as a Judge, but as there has been an omission concerning entries in the min- utes, and for the purpose of making the record show the true state of facts, I have invited Judge Sanderson, the presiding Judge, to show the exact state of facts, so that therecord may show and conform to the truth. Will you please take the stand, Judge?’ | Judge Sanderson was sworn to tell the truth concerning the matter upon which he was to be questioned. He stated that | at a meeting of the Judges in bank in Jan- uary last it had been agreed that 3600 petit jurors and 144 grand jurors shoul({’ebe | drawn for the year; that after that each | Judge had submitted his list and the | whole number was made up and handed | to the County Clerk. “Of course, your Honor,” said Mr. Deu- prey, after Judge Sanderson had finished, “this character of proof is objected to be- cause it is not the best evidence.” The objection was overruled. “‘Upon the statement to me,” resumed | Judge Sanderson, “‘that the secretary had | omitted to enter the minutes of the court | in bank in this proceeding, I directed him | to insert these minutes as they actuall | took place there, which he has done and{ I have certified to.” Judge Sanderson was excused and Secre- tary Coffroth was called. He testified that under the direction of the presiding Judge he had made additional entries in the minute-book of the Superior Court, to show | how the lists of petit and grand jurors had been made up. Mr. Deuprey moved to | strike out_ this evidence, because, as he stated, it did not comply with the require- ments of the statute, and for the reason the entries spoken of had not been made imations of knowledge | t,on the after- | s Lamont at some | nd at t& adjournment of court | | are Irwin J. Truman, the well- et readers may de- | | at the time. The motion was denied. Mr. | Deuprey then made his objection to the panel more specific. . “We make objection,” he said, “‘upon the ground that the manner of the selec- tion of the jurors does not comply with the provisions of sections 204 and 205 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this, that it does not appear that they were selected in this relation of persons not exempt from ser- vice. We refer particularly in this to the fact thata number of those obtained by the court yesterday were instead of their being selected by reason of their not being exempt from jury duty it was found that several were exempt from jury duty by their testimony; that othfrs presented certificates of physicians to show that they were not physically and mentally capable of being jurors in the case. We make this objection specifically to each one of the lisi that has been presented and filed with the Covunty Clerk of the City and County of San Francisco.” ““Objection overruled.” said Judge Mur- phy. “If such an ob{ection as that could prevail it would devolve upon each of the Judges of this court to personally inspect the physical infirmities of all jurors.” | "We simply stand within the law,’”” said Mr. Deuprey. ‘Of course, the law may be | cumbersome.”” ¥ 5 “The challenge ‘of the panel is disal- lowed,”* said Judge Murphy. This matter being so disposed of, the court ordered that the slips of paper con- taining the namesof the jurors be placed in the tin box and twelve names be drawn therefrom. This was done and twelve members of the panel answered their names, were sworn and took their seats in | the jury-box. e “Gentlemen of the jury.” said District Attorney Barnes, arising to address them, “and I desire the other talesmen present to give me their attention—gentlemen of the jury, the defendant, William Henry Theodore Durrant, is charged by the people of the State of California with the crime of murder, namely, in having caused the deati of one Blanche Lamont, in_this City and County, in the Emmanuel Bap- tist Church, on Bartlett street, between Twenty-second and Twenty-third, on or about the 3d of April of this year. For this offense he is now brought to trial and | you are called to be examined as jurors to try this case.” it Clerk Morris called the name of William Helbing. contractor and builder, residing at 1005 Treat avenue. “‘Are you a member of Emmanuel Bap- tist Church ?’’ asked the District Attorney. “No, sir.” *‘Are you acquainted with the defendant Durrant?” “"No, sir,” was the reply. “Has the relation of attorney and client ever existed between you and Mr. Deuprey or General Dickinson? “No, sir.”” “Have you ever had any business rela- tions with Detective Morse—are you ac- | quainted with Mr. Morse?” | ©“No, sir,”" replied Mr. Helbing. «Have you any religious scruples against the infliction of the death penalty in a | proper case?” i “Nosi came the prompt reply. “Mr. Helbing,” continued Mr. Barnes, | “if there should be produced in this case | evidence which was circumstantial in its | nature, would you disregard that evidence | simply and solely because it was circum- ial evidence and refuse to consider it | In arriving at your verdict, or would you | give it such a weight as_you would con- sidger it entitled to and give it such weight as it deserved 2"’ The witness did not quite understand the question, and stated he only knew the difference between direct and circumstan- tial evidence from reading the papers. The District Attorney then gave him illustra- tions of both kinds of evidence and asked: “Now, would you regard and take into your consideration, for the purpose of arriving at your verdict, such circumstan- tial evidence as might be presented to you, as well as direct evidence ?” “Of course,” was the reply. “In other words. you would consider circumstantial evidence ?”” *“Well, it depends on how strong it is.” “Would you consider circumstantial evi- dence and weigh it, giving it such weight as you would think it entitled to in your 4 “And you would weigh it as you would any other evidence?” “I would.” “If you were satisfied in your own mind by circumstantial evidence of the guilt of | the defendant, could you find a verdict of uilty where the punishment would be death upon such evidence ?” “Yes, sir, I would.” “Do you know of any reason why you | would not be able to sit as a, fair and im- partial juror in this case and render a just verdict as between the people on one side and the defendant on the other?”’ “No, sir.” The prosecution passed the juror, and | he was taken in hand by Mr. Deuprey for the defense. “‘Have you any acquaintance with I. W. Lees?” *No, sir.” “Or Mr. Benjamin Bohen?" “No, sir.”’ “Or Mr. Seymour?” *No, sir.” And so it went through the list of City detectives, the Chief of Police, the Coroner and his deputies, the juroranswering ‘‘no” to every question. He also pleaded a total ignorance of the existence of such persons as the District Attorney or any of his as- sistants, orof C. G. Noble, uncle of Blanche Lamont; Rev. J. George Gibson, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church; the pastor's secretary, Mr. Lynch; Elmer Wolf, Clar- ence Woif and Minnie Lord. The witness stated that he had read the testimony given at the Coroner's inquest, and had discussed it freely with a number of friends. “Have you ever discussed it with any erson who was a witness either at the hearing before the Goroner or at the pre- nary examination?”’ “No, sir.”” “From what you have read,” asked Mr. Deuprey, “and from the discussions in which you engaged, have you formed or expressed an_opinion as to the guilt or in- nocence of the defendant—not what the opinion is, but, have you expressed an opinion ?" “I have, sir.” “Do you now possess an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant?” *Yes, sir.”’ ‘‘1s that opinion such a one as would re- gu:'x;e evidence, strong evidence, to remove it? *“Yes, sir.” . “In other words, would you like to be tried uFon a charge of this serious nature by twelve men possessing such an opinion as you now possess?”’ “I would not like to be; mno, sir,” answered the juror in such lugubrious tfmhea that everybody present laughed ont- right. *“We challenge the juror, if your Honor please,” said Mr. Deuprey, “in this, that there has been obtained from the testi- mony of the gentleman called to answer questions as to his qualifications the exist- ence of facts which disqualify him and known as implied bias.” _The challenge was allowed. Mr. Hel- bing excused. The name_ of John H. Grady was next called, but Mr. Deuprey interrupted by asking that the jury-box be filled before the examination of any other juror was proceeded with. Judge Murphy decided that it was necessary, 1n view of the fact that the Supreme Court had held time and again that when once twelve jurors had been called into the box, the examina- tion of the twelve must proceed before others were called. The defense noted an exception, and Mr. Grady was taken in hand by the District Attorney. He stated that he was a real estate agent, with his place of business at 323 Montgomery street and residence at 730 Twenty-fourth street. In answer to questions he stated plainly that he had conscientious scruples against the infliction of the death penalty. He was 80 positive on this point that aftera few questions by the court, the challenge made by the people was allowed and Mr. Grady was excused. Thomas W. Seiberlich, manufacturer, re- siding at 533 Ellis street, was next ques- tioned as to his qualifications. “Haye you any conscientious scruples against the infliction of the death penalty in a proper case?” asked the District At- torney. “No, sir.” : % “Would you weigh circumstantial evi- dence, giving it such weight as it was en- titled to and, if you thoughtit sufficient, would you return upon it a verdict of guilty ?” “Yes, sir; I think so.” The juror testified that he was not a ! member of the Emmanuel Church and not acquainted with the aefendant, Durrant, nor the organist of thé church, George King. He wasthen passed to the defense, “Mr. Seiberlich, have you any acquaint- | ance with any member of the detective force of the City and County of San Fran- cisco?” asked Mr. Deuprey. “No, sir.” Mr. Deuprey then questioned closely as | to his acqaintance with the same persons as to whom he had inquired so closely from Mr. Helbing, but the witness an- swered that he knew none of them. “Have you read any of the newspaper | accounts,” continued Mr. Deuprey, “‘per- taining to this charge?”’ | “I have not read them thoroughly—just glanced through them. We took THE CALL and Examiner, but I just glanced through them, but never memorized any of it.” { 1t would require the strongest evidence to | read several authorities of the Supreme by the District Attorney and excused, there being no denial. Henry Messenberg of 857 Sutter street had not the slightest scruple ‘against the infliction of the death penalty, and was vassed by the prosecution after very few uestions. In answer toa query b{ Mr. Deuprey, he stated that he had great faith in the value of circumstantial evidence, although he believed in the liability of mistake in the matter of identification. He was not particularly acquainted with any members of the Police Department, but had formed an opinion on the case, and a very strong one—so fixed a one that remove it. .“We challenge the juror under the pro- visions of subdivisions 1and 2 of section 1073 of the Penal Code,” said Mr. Deuprey, ‘‘particularly in this, that his testimony has elicited the fact that he is possessed of an opinion that would take testimeny of the strongest kind to remove.”’ In support of his opinion, Mr. Deuprey Court of the State of Washington, but the court overruled the challenge. Assistant District Attorney Peixotto then took the juror. “If you were sworn in the case asa juror,” he asked, ‘‘do you feel that you would and could try the case and make up your verdict simply and solely according to the cvidence as you would hear it in court and the law as given you by the court?” f Mr., Deuprey objected to this question, cussing the case. He was excused on the challenge for cause by the defendant. Romain C. de Boom of 634 Golden Gate avenue had read some of the newspaper accounts, though he did not remember to have discussed the case. He could accept circumstantial evidence and thought per- sons could be mistaken as to identity. He had served as a juror in criminal cases, but had no animosity against the de- fendant. “Would you like to be sworn as a juror in this case?” asked Mr. Deuprey. “I am not anxious, but am willing to do my duty.” He believed he could try the case im- artially. He was born in” Belgium and had lived in San Francisco most of the past twenty-four years. There was no challenge for cause, but Mr. de Boom was afterward excused on peremptory challenge by the defense. John H. Rippe, 2536 Bryant, grocer, said that he could not, under any circum- stanees, join in a verdict of guilty where the punishment was the death penalty, and the conviction founded upon circum- stantial evidence. He would simply refuse to bring in a verdict. The State’s chal- lenge for cause, based on sections 1073, 1074 and 1078 of the Penal Code, was al- lowed. Thomas W. Seiberlich, 533 Ellis street, was again questioned by Mr. Deuprey. He said he had not read the evidence before the Coroner’s jury nor the commit- ting magistrate, though he had glanced at the items or the headlines in the news- Trman Lusltens To It —_—— — 1 *‘Have you talked to any tion to what you have read ? “I have.” “Have you formed or expressed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant?”’ “Yes, sir,” promptly replied the witness. “Do you now possess that opinion?” “Yes, sir.” “Is that opinion such that it would re- quire evidence to remove it?”’ “Very strong evidence,”’ replied Mr. Seiberlich. *In other words, as you now are, with the opinion that you possess, you would not sit there as an impartial juror—you wounld require some evidence to remove the opinion you now hold 2"’ “Yes, sir.” *‘And do you believe you conld sit here and try this case as an impartial juror be- tween the defendant and the State?"” “Yes, sir.” ‘Do you mean to say that you, possess- ing an opinion from what you have read and discussed, could go into that jury-box with the same condition of mind as be- tween the State and the defendant as though you had never read anything or discussed the matter?” “I would take the case as the evidence was given,”’ was the reply. \Wonid you ke for be kxied iy twalve men possessing the same ovinion you pos- sess at the present time if you were charged with a crime?’’ “I would.” “If you were charged by the court, Mr. Seiberlich, in_relation to circumstantial evidence that if you possessed a reasonable doubt as to any one circumstance that might be testified to—that is to say, any essential circumstance that might be testi- tied to—would you, if charged that that must be resolved in favor of the defendant, be guided by such a charge?” “Yes, sir; I would.” “Have you any opinion,” asked Mr. Deuprey, taking a new tack and disclosing part of what will be the line of defense, “in | relation to the requirements of testimony in regard to identification?” “In which way?” inquired the juror. “That is to say, as to the liability of a person being mistaken in regard to the person whom they claim was presentata certain place on a certain occasion ?—that is, do you believe in the fallibility of testi- mony upon identification—that a_ person may be misguided by the thought that ossessed him at the time he claims to ave seen the person?” “Yes, sir,” answered the juror. ‘That they might be misguided as to color, size and surrounding conditions?” “Yes, sir.”’ “Do you recognize now that such mis- takes could occur, and that the person so | testifying could be mistaken ?” “Yes, sir.” “Do you believe, sir, with all that you bave said upon the matter pertaining to | this case, and from what you have heard | others say, and with all you have read in i regard to it, that you could sit here as an impartial juror to try this case.” [ think I could,”” said Mr. Seiberlich. “And that you would free yourself from any opinion you have formed in regard to it? person in rela” “I would accept the evidence.” “And that yon would sit here, if sworn as a juror, listen to theevidence and weigh the same in exactly the like position as | though you had never read anything about the case, or discussed it, or heard it dis- cussed ?” “Yes, sir.” “We pass for the present,” said Mr. Deuprey. Mr. Barnes took the juror again. *If you ghould be convinced by the evi- dence produced before you of the guilt of the defendant,” he said, “would you find him guilty upon that evidence—-finding i your verdict alone upon that evidence, an: not be swayed or infiuenced by any senti- ment of sympathy or compassion toward | the defendant or any of his relatives?” “Yes, sir.”” ¢ “Would you,” asked Mr. Deuprey, rising quickly to his feet, ‘‘be influenced underi any circumstances, if you were sworn asa juror, in relation to the evidence in the case, or your verdict, by any influence that | might be exercised through any line or | direction coming from the Police Depart- | ment of the City and County of San Fran- cisco?”’ ‘ 1 object to that question,” promptly ex- claimed Mr. Barnes. “I would accept it the same as any other,” was the reply of the juror. “I am asking you,” said ‘Mr. Deuprey, “would you be influenced by any act of the Police Department ?”” “No, sir.” ““Would you be influenced by the news- papers after you were sworn as a juror?” **No, sir.” The defense passed the juror, and James W. Orndorff of 102 Powell street was next questioned. He stated that he had con- scientious seruples against the infliction of the death penalty where the testimony was circumstantial. He also stated that he had formed a very strong opinion con- cerning the guilt or innocence of the de- fendant from talking to friends and read- ing the newspapers. He was firm in the belief that he was not in the proper frame of mind to act as a juror and was chal- lenged for cause by the District Attorney. There being no denial the court allowed the chullenge and the juror was excused. Jobn Schulken of 901 Bush street stated plainly that he would not be in favor of returning a_verdict, the consequence of 5 N i strong and most positive. | had read the testimon, \Lsens Frovate Jew-hay; B on the ground that it did not go to the competency of the juror. The objection was argued at length, and finally overruled by ‘the court. Further questions were then put by Mr. Deuprey, which showed that the juror had an opinion based on reading | the testimony given at the Coroner’s in- quest, which testimony he believed to be true. He was challenged for implied and actual biag, and the challenge was allowed by Judge Murphy, who held that if the téstimony was correctly reported and the | juror took it as true, there was no other gqgrse open than to excuse him, which he id. The court then ordered a recess until 2 o'clock. ! Upon the reconvening of court Fran! Edward Booth, late of 510 Fillmore street, was called upon an attachment for failure to respond to his name when called at the mornmfi session. He explained to the courp_that he had within the past three | months removed his residence to Oakland. | This he had explained to the deputy who summoned him to appear for jury duty. The excuse was_sufficient to excuse Mr. | Booth from punishment for contempt, but | the matter of his qualification for jury duty not then being under consideration, he was required to remain in attendance upon the court. The examination of the six remaining talesmen in the box was then resumed. Charles H. Clark, 1134 Sutter street, ex- amined by District Attorney Barnes as to his qualification to_sit as a juror, testified that he was a retired merchant and a man of family. He had been aresident of San Francisco for six years. He was not a member of Emmanuel Baptist Church, and had no acquaintance with Defendant Dur- rant nor parties connected with the case. Under certain circumstances, Mr. Clark said, he had conscientious scruples against the infliction of the death penalty. The circumstantial evidence that would recon- cile his conscience would have to be very “Have you any objection to circumstan- tial evidence as evidence?’ asked Mr. Barnes. “Yes,” answered the talesman, but he would weigh such evidence as he would other evidence, and would not disregard it simply because it was circumstantial evi- dence. He had read the newspaperac- counts of the preliminary trials, which he | believed to true reports, and had formed, not a positive opinion, butan im- pression, sucn as would to a certain extent influence him as a juror, and would require evidence to remove. He felt he could not act fairly and impartially as a juror. The court allowed the challenge for cause by the State. William M. Elliott, publisher, 1309 Polk street, had been a resident of San Fran- cisco for twenty years; he had no objection to circumstantial evidence as evidence, and would consider it as he would any other evidence: and, if he was satisfied of the guilt of the defendantas established unon circumstantial evidence, and the pen- alty was death, he would be willing to join in a verdict of guilty. -He was not ac- uainted with the defendant or any of de- endant’s family. On being interrogated by Mr. Deuprey for the aefense, Mr. Elliott stated that he taken at the Cor- oner’s inquest and tze preliminary trial | and had discussed the case. Upon that reading and discussion he had formed an | opinion and still retained it, and it would require pretty strong evidence to remove it. Counsel for the defense challenged the talesman for cause based on subdivisions 1and 2, section 1073, Penal Code, and the court allowed the challenge. : John Lynch, a porter, residing at 26 Wil- low avenue, testified that he had no con- scientious scruples against inflicting the death penalty and would consider circum- stantial evidence as he would any other evidence, and would be willing to join in a verdict of guilty established by circum- stantial evidence, not pfilfl“fiflKB!y ‘mpathy or compassion to sway him. But, in an- swer to questions by defendant’s counsel, Mr. Lynch declared that he had formed an opinion from reading the newspapers that could be removed only by varg strong evidence. He was excused on the chal- lenge of the defense for cause. . William Schwarke, wine merchant, re- siding at 769 Jones street, a native of Ger- many, had been a resident in San Fran- cisco for twenty years and had no scruples as to capital punishment and no prejudice which would be the death penalty, on cir- cumstantial evidence, - He was challenged against circumstantial evidence, but had formed an opinion from reading and dis- ! ther question by the | convict under {apers. He had served as a juror in the United States court and-in one of the Superior courts.” He said he had no ac- quaintance with Martin Quinlan, and be- lieved he could try the case impartially and be guided by the evidence under the instructions of the court. He was passed as to cause and upon peremptory privi- lege and was sworn_to try the cause, being the only man remaining in the box. Eleven more names were called, and the examination proceeded. John G. Clark, 1101 Green street, had no grejudice against circumstantial evidence ecause it was circumstantial, but it would have to be very strong to effect conviction t his hands. He had read of the case and ormed and expressed an opinion that would require strongevidence to remove. He was excused on the challenge by the defense, which was denied without fur- prosecution but allowed by the court. Isaac H. Morse, 115 Clay street, had read the reports of preliminary evidence, formed and retained an opinion. He was chal- enged by the prosecution, which was de- nied by the defense and aliowed by the court Addison €. Misner, 1434 Washington street, said he had conscientious scruples against the death penalty and could not any circumstances. The court allowed the State’s challenge, and Mr. Misner was excused. Irwin J. Truman, president Columbia Banking Comgflny, 236 Bush street, residing at 812 Twentieth street, testified that he had heard the questions asked of other talesmen on circumstantial evidence and answered that he could join in a verdict on such evidence. He was accepted by the prosecution, and Mr. Deuprey questioned him. “Did you read what purported to be the testimony before the Coroner’s jury 2"’ “I have no distinctrecollection of it now, but think I did.” “Did you read that taken before the committing magistrate?” “I think I did, sometimes headlines.” " “Have you discussed the matter?” I have no doubt that I have.” “‘From what you read or heard, and the discussions by yourself, or by others, did youonrm or express an opinion ?’’ “Yes.” *‘Is that a firm and fixed opinion?” “No, sir; it 18 not. Directevidence would change it."”” ‘Do you, at the present time, possess an opinion on the subject of the guiPY. or inno- cence of the defendant?” ‘‘No, I do not think I do.” “Then you are entirely free of any bias or %rejudice e “Iam entirely free of any bias against the young man, because I do not know him. I am not acquainted with C. G. Noble.” ““You can cast aside any opinion you huv; hag and try the case impartially ?" “Yes. _“As to matters of identification, you be- lieve that persons may be mistaken, and such testimony should be taken with great caution ?” No challenge § o challenge for cause or on peremptory privilege was offered, and Mr. rumnl? w?s passed by the defense, as he had been by the prosecution. Victor Boschetti, a fruit-vender, was excused on the challenge of the prosecu- tion on the ground that he could not well understand the En%lish language. The challenge was allowed. Jacob Martenstein of the National Flour- mills, residing at 1129 Turk street, was passed by the prosecution, but challenged by the defense on the ground that he had formed and still retained an opinion which would require strong evidence to remove. The challenge was allowed. . James D. Bailey, insurance agent, resid- ing at 1915 Franklin street, said it would require very strong circumstantial evi- dence for him to convict, and thought he had such prejudice as to disqualify him. He was passed by the prosecution and, under a misunaerstanding, also by the de- fense. Then the prosecution challenged him, and the challenge was allowed. Charles Proschold, 708 Point Lobos avenue, was excused on the challenge of the defense on the ground that he pos- sessed an opinion which would require strong evidence to remove. Bernard Schloh was excused on the ground of non-residence, having removed to Marin County five months ago. Mr. Deuprey was granted the privilege of asking Mr. Truman further questions only the ;mhout objection on the part of the de- ense. ::Do you know the Rey. Mr. Gibson?” 1 got acquainted with him since the oceurrence in the church, I have not dis- cussed the matter with him.” ¢Did your acquaintance influence you?” ‘No, sir. I never talked with him—just shook hands with him.” “You are a member of Grace Methodist Episcopal Church 2’ “Yes, sir.” ““Is Grace Church one of the churches where Dr. Gibson was invited to preach?” “Yes, sir.”” “Hayving heard him preach, would that ffect your opinion ?” o, sir.” ““Would you place credence in him if he were a witness rather than in any other witness?”’ “No, sir.”’ “;Dul_you take part in the invitation?" “I think the invitation was given by the minister, but if I had been asked I would have joined in the invitation.” “You think that would not affect your mind in dealing with the evidence.” “Not at all. “You would sim: you hear?” “That is all.” )o_ncrenlpnorv' challenges were made on Mr. Truman and he was accepted and sworn as aI]uror to try the case. Samuel Ignatius Warren, salesman for O’Connor & Moffatt, was excused on the challenge of the defense on the ground of having formed an opinion in the case. John H. Curry, 1008 Golden Gate avenue, was excused on challenge of the defense on the ground of having a fixed and unquali- fied opinion. General Dickinson, on behalf of the de- fendant, asked for an order to take the depositior: of Charles A. Clark, a resident of Boston, and read the foilowing affidavit of the defendant: W. H.T. Durrant, bein g duly sworn, deposes and say am the defendant above named. I am now in the custody of the Sheriff of the City and County of San Francisco and on trial in said court on a charge of murder, to which charge I have entered s plea of not guilty, and an issue of fact has been joined in this case. Charles H. Clark is a material witness for me in my defense, without whose testimony I can- not safely conclude my defense. Said Charles H. Clark resides without the State of Califor- nia, to wit, Boston, Massachusetts. W. H. T. DURRANT. Subseribed and sworn to beifore me this 26th day of July, 1895. A8. C. MORRIS, Deputy County Clerk. The following interrogations were then filed with the clerk of the court: In the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. The People, etc., vs. W. H. T. Durrant. Direct interrogatories to be. propounded to Charles H. Clark, a witness on behalf of the de- fendant in the above-entitled action. Interrogatory 1-—State your name, age and place of residence, business or occupation and place of business. Interrogatory 2—Do you know the defendant, W. H. T. Durrant, and have you ever seen him; if y do, how long have you known him? When have you known him, and under what circumstances, and when and where have you seen him? _State fully. Intérrogatory 3—Have you ever lived in_San Francisco, Cal., and been en%lged in business there? If you have, state fully: When you lived there. Where you lived and giving the streets and numbers of streets. In what business were you or are you en- gaged, and for what length of time? Interrogatory 4—Have you any relatives in San Francisco? If you have, name some of them and the degree of relationship. Interrogatory 5—Did you ever, in San Fran- ciseo, see a young lady named Blanche La- mont? Interrogatory 6—If to the last interrogatory you have answered yes, state when and where you saw her, stating fully and particularly the hour of the day, the place where. the length of time that you saw her, and surroundings in which you saw her, and in whose company, if any. Interrogatory 7—If in answer to the last in- terrogatory you have siated that you saw Miss Blanche Lamont in company with a gentle- man on Wednesday, the 3d day of April, 1895, describe as fully ‘and particularly &s you can Miss Blanche Lamont, aud how she was dressed and did she have any parcel in her possession; also the gentleman with her; where were they together and what was their couduct during the time? When did you first see them on the cars, if at all? What, if any, conversation did you hear between them? How long were they in your sight and hearing, and when and where you last saw them? interrogatory S—State fully, if you know, how your name came to the possession of the defense in this action. Interrogatory 9—State as fully and particu- larly as if directly interrogated about the same any other matter or thing within your knowl- edge regarding the defendant and the charge against him of murdering the said Miss Lamont. The two jurors sworn to try the case, Messrs, Truman and Seiberlich, were then charged by the court as to their duty in refraining from reading about or discuss- inE the case, and an adjournment was taken till Monday at 10 A. . After the adjournment the attorneys for the defense held a consultation to discuss the newest aspect of the case. The witness Charles H. Clark, whose presence in court it is impossible to obtain, and whose deposition General Dickinson is anxious to have taken in Boston,is a traveling man for a wholesale wine and spirit _house in that city. His business often brings him to San Francisco. He was personally acquainted with Blanche. Lamont and had met her frequently. He is expected to testify as follows: That petween 3:30 and 4 o’clock on the after- al ply be governed by what be: CH. adies Please Don’t Mix this up with “ Reduction Sale.” Our $2.50 Shoes are the $3.50 Shoes of Retail Stores. Our $3.50 Shoes have a $5 tag on them in retail windows. Finest Viei Kid ; button, lea- ther or cloth top; latest last (the “Yosemite”); patent ven- tilated sole. That’s Retailing at wholesale prices. ROSENTHAL, FEDER & CO., Wholesale Shoe Manufncturle‘rs. 581-583 MARKET ST., NEAR SECOND. Open Evenings till 8. Saturdays till 10. R T ST R P O R l _l noon of April 3 he was riding out Market street on a Valencia-street car. r51“)::: he udelss anmm hqn that car, and hat she bowed and spoke to him. e ot %he had a young man With her, and that that young man was not Theodore Dur- rant. A few days afte: called on General r Durrant’s arrest Clark 1 Dickinson and told his story. At that time he expected to be able to attend the trial in person. Busi- ness, however, called him gudd_enly to Boston; but he returned to this City _aml was awaiting the trial when, a second time, his presence in the East became impera- tive. When he leit he expected to be able to return in time to testify, but, appar- ently, his business affairs have ren ered this impossible. General Dickinson received a tel dispatch yesterday from Clark, stating that he positively could not testify here in person. As a result, the afiidavit inter- rogatories looking toward a deposition were hurriedly drawn up in the courtroom and presented to the court. Captain Lees and District Attorney Barnes held a long consultation last night regarding the means of discovering the whereabouts of Clark, whom they so much desire to interview and ask certain questions regarding Blanche Lamont according to the document filed in court. Captain Lees said that Clark had not been located, but. it is understood that he is traveling in the Eastern States in the in- terests of a local winehouse. egraphic A Family Jar. GREAT AMERICAN IMPORTING TEA CO.'S Stores are selling MASON FRUIT JARS At greatly reduced prices. 1 dozen iars, pints, in box . 1 dozen jars, quarts, in box. 1 dozen jars, half gallons, in box. Inspect our Improved ; YUU\{ Direct With TSI HYAMS, PAUSON & C0, 34, 36, 38 and 40 Kearny Street, ——AND— 25 and 27 Sansome Street, Wholesale Manufacturing Clothiers Selling Direct to the Public. White Body And collar—fancy bosom and cuffs—collars and cuffs attached or separate—that's probably the prettiest and most popular style of PERCALE SHIRTS. If you ask for the STANDARD make you get the best for the money and you help home industry. All Dealers. NEUSTADTER BROS. Mirs., S. P, NEW SCHOOL! GERMAN AND ENGLISH SCHOOL, 1986 wzgs’l‘zn ST., OAKLAND of Or 3 OFENs AvGESTT ‘wmu“f?lvu CORPS OF SoaLeach: Mmmmn for Universities. Ger- ‘Opening Exercises held CCL Ouifiand a6 10 4. 3. 17, PEMOinR o