The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, September 27, 1895, Page 5

THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1895. 5 WAS THERE BLOOD ON THE PASTOR'S SHOE? Testimony That the tain Was Not Blood. DR. CHENEY'S ROLLCALL. The Book Shows That Durrant Was Not Marked Absent From the Lecture. MARKS ON THE BELFRY DOOR. Evidence to Show That the Pastor’s Chisel Was Not Used—The Defendant’s Alibl. THE DURRANT TRIAL ROLLCALL the defense yester- ee points: Was & the pastor’s study ere the marks on ¥ produced by & pastor’s study? * Was Dur- Cheney’s lecture on the ts Sergeant Reynolds, ve Cody and Detective e result that Sergeant been satisfied the nd covered with paint, ntified the rollbook E on all sides the book was [ that Durrant was not T he lecture, ither of the wever, had any recoliection of urrant was or was not present at the d Mr. Barnes gave notice that he 0g the practice of students to not present in order e crowa in the corridors uly that Judge Murphy orneys had to fairly fight iectured the Deputy that unless a pas- you wish only to » accomplished in the terday the foregoing summary however, understa d will be accorded — . —— THE SIXTEENTH DAY. As to the Rolicall and the Chisel Marks on the Door—Slow Progress. Not a great deal of progress was made in defense of Theodore Durrant yester- »st of the day was spent in argu- etween the counsel ou both sides ourt concerning the adnjissibility of evidence touching two points. Che was with reference to the chisel t Chen College lecture at Cooper the afternoon of on v thought honors were ded on these two points e were brought down then a deal of questioning these marks—their size, their beir description and all that— d Detective Cody told Mr. he jury and the court in g »n examination by a magni- the first mark was.an old one 1 painted over, and that the : was plainly scen to be, when door was shat, the mark left by the use * So it would appear that I found in the pastor’s study did t produce the marks on the belfry door- At least this was the last evidence d on the subject yesterday by the e the defense had called was an understand- when sufficient testimony has been introduced touching the condition of the door at present and the state of good or bad preservation it may be in the jurors will be permitted to examine the marks for themselves and form their own con- clusions. Another point that was discussed in the morning concerned the shoes found in the pastor’s study. There was & dark spot on one of them. But Sergeant Burke tes- tified that when the shoes were first ex- amined the police came to the eonclusion that the spot was not a blood stain and for that reason had paid no further attention to the shoes. However, Sergeant Reynolds had pre- served that shoe. The spot was still on it. He put a chalkmark around the spot, and s added tothe long, long list of ts. me Dr. Cheney then and his rollbook of the lecture delivered by him on the afternoon in question. Came also, almost 2t the same moment, a lengthy argument the admissibility of that rollbook. ove: wh afternoon. The rollbook showed that W. H. T. Dur- rant, as Mr. Deuprey never fails to call him, was not absent from that lecture. That is, there is no absent mark, or A, afier his name. But neither Dr. Cheney nor Student Gray, who made the talty and called the names, has any knowledze of whether Durrant was present and an- swered his own name, or whether the “here”’ was called out by some one else in the room. As to the admissibility of the book, Mr. Barnes soon discovered that it was not the nal book of entry, and that the en- s had first been made on a page headed March 31, and subsequently erased and transferted to the page marked *‘April 3.” Upon these grounds he fought stoutly the admission of the record, but Mr. Deuprey finally triumphed, and the book went inas evidence—or, more accurately, as an ex- hibit of the defense. Judge Murphy remarked that in his opinion the case was similar to that of a bookkeeper who should have made a cor- rection in his books. And the fact is that Student Gray was there to testify that he IN A MINUTE-THE | not blood, and Detective | 1e of the marks on the | the roll- | Dr. Cheney asn people’s witness to | the police would be.| e door of the belfry, and the | on the admission of the roll- | ion and the defense. the defense to show the door jamb were nd in the tool chest o this end the door | h was not concluded till late in the | | made a mistake in making the tallies and | that afterward, at Dr. Cheney’s direction, | | he made the correction. Then as to testing the accuracy of the | rollbook, Mr. Barnes claimed the right to ask Dr. Cheney what his experience had been concerning other pupils answering for those not present. Mr. Deuprey most | stoutly denied the right of any such in- | quiry. He wanted the record to speak for itselfi. The court said that the District Attorney had certainiy the right to offer proof showing the incorrectness of the record, if he could. But the manner in which Mr. Barnes couched his questions, | examin: | question. Barnes—We object to that. Itisasking for hearsay. Deuprey—We are only asking for what he did, not what was said. The court—He may answer that. Witness-—No, sir. “What did you do with the shoes?” “We came to the conclusion that the spots were not blood, so we left them there.” “Do you recollect Sergeant Reynolds wrap- | ping up one of them?” | “No, sir.” Barnes—Answer this question simply yes or no and do not answer until the defense has had time to offer an objection. “Did you make this search, at the time when you found the choes, in relation to the case of heodore Durrant charged with the murder of Blanche Lamont?"” Deunprey—We object to that as not being cross- ion, as immaterial and incompetent. Barnes—I ask the question because the testi- mony of this witness has no connection with this case. It was 1 o'clock Sunday morning when this search was made. The court—I will sustain the objection to the The motive of the search can have no bearing at this time, and the jury knows the time at which it wes made and can'apply it. | asking for the experience rather than the knowledge of the witness, was not, the | court held, entirely proper. | Mr. Barnes then gave notice that at a | future time he would make Dr. Cheney his | own witness. By the time this point had | been reached in the day’s proceedings the | hour for adjournment had come and a | recess was taken till this morning. Prior to the opening of the afternoon | session the crowds were so dense in the | corridors approaching the courtroom and £0 unruly and so entirely bevond the con- trol of the deputies and policemen in at- tendance that Judge, jurors, attorneys and all the court officials and attaches had to | the courtrcom with clothes wrinkled or torn and with collars wilted and neckties awry, panting and showing many evi- dences of the struggle they must pa through. ‘When Judge Murphy finally secared an | entrance he called for the Deputy Sheriff in charge and lectured him soundly upon | the handling of the crowd. If the Sheriff's office could not maintain a free passage to would be calied upon for as: ance, the court intimated, in rather positive lan- guage. Juror Smyth also entered a protest, re- future, to fight his way into the court- room. g R THE MORNING SESSION. The Marks Were Not Made by a Chisel, Cody Testifies—Rollcall of Dr. Cheney’s Lecture. The biggest and weightiest exhibit yet | offered in the Durrant case was produced | by the defense yesterday. When the | spectators began to crowd into the court- | room in the morning they found a whole, | Ii e door frame with a practical door swinging from it. It proved to be the door and door-frame leading into the belfry of Smmanuel Church, taken bodily from the church and set down near the skeleton | model of the tower and belfry that stands i corner of Judge Murphy’s court. Officer Russell was called upon to nail the door-frame exhibit in a standing posi- and then Sergeant Reynolds, who was still on the witness-stand, opened the door, walked through it, looked it over and finally identified it as the door and door- way tothe belfry. Then he pointed out the hammer mark on the doorjamb, four inches above the lock-plate on the right side, and about two inches from the chisel mar] Under Mr. | Dickinson’s questioning the witness pointed out all the indentations and de- | scribed them in detail. Then the witness | | was asked about the shoes found in the | pastor’s study at 1 o'elock in the morning of April 14. This was some hours before the body of Blanche Lamont was found in the belfry, and the police were then work- | ing on the Minnie Williams case, but this | did not appear until later on. | Witness testified that he examined the | | shoes found, and that one of them was | pped ina paper and sent to the City | He did not remember who carried | the package from the church. pped up. | I think T wrapped it mysel. | *““Whose shoe was that?” | “Idonotkuow.” “Was there anything about the shoe that at- tracted your attention?” es that spot appear there now?” *‘This may be it, but I thought it was further down. “What kind of a spot was it?"” ‘It was dark brown and had fine straw in it.” “Did you examine it with s glass?” “We had no glass there that night.” Juror Smyth—After you feund the shoes did pieces of | | that the hammer was taken up to the bel- fight their way through. They entered | and from the courtroom the Chief of Police | marking that he did not propose, in the | tion by bracing it to the window casing, | I show you this shoe; can you | w & red or brown spot on the bottom.” | Iam not certain.” | Detective Charles J. Cody was called and sworn. He said he recollected a visit made | | to the Emmanuel Church in company | th Detective Bohen and Attorneys Dick: | inson and Deuprey. The visit was made on the 8th of April, between 4:30 and 5:30 | in the afternoon. | He remembered that a hammer was | founa in the pastor's study in a toolbox; | fry-door and fitted in the indentations. As to the chisel, he did not remember. The “Did you erlarge the indentations by this 7 asked Mr. Barnes. “I did not,” answered the witness, after the court had overruled Mr. Deuprey’s objection to the question. Dr. William Fitz Cheney, lecturer at the Cooper Medical College, was the next wit- ness. April 3, in the afternoon, commenc- ing at 3:50 and ending at 4:15, he lectured on the subject of **How Infants Feed,’” in- volying, as Mr. Deuprey elicited, the mat- ter of the sterilization of milk. «\yas there & roll kept of those who were present at that lecture?”” asked Mr. Deuprey. “There was.” = “When was that taken? “At the close of the lecture.” “Now, consult your rollbook and state if you. find the name of W. H. T. Durranton it marked as present.” Barnes—I object to that untilT haye a chance to sk some questions about the rollbook. Deuprey—We do not offer the roll in evi- dence. The court—But suppose the witness did not keep the rollbook himself? Deuprey—We maintain that the rollbook is not in question at this time. The court—You can ask him if he knows nether Durrant was present; but unless he cept the roil he can have no kKnowiedge of its orrectness. Deuprey—I will ask that, your Honor. (To witness)-~Do you believe the roil is correct? 7pon what do yon base that belief?” «Because 1 questioned each papil subse- quently concerning his absence or presence, and found the roll to tally with their an- swers.” GIBSON’S TOOLBOX WHILE 8 BELFRY. SERGEANT REYNOLDS IVDENTIFYING THE CHISEL OUT OF DB.! TANDING IN THE DOOR OF THE [Sketched by a *“ Call”’ artist.] hammer was wrapped up and taken to po- lice headquarters. Witness then took the hammer and fitted it to the indentations on the door | jamb. He identified the other tools found in the tooibox in the study at that time, and also a small blackboard that was hang- ing on the wall. “‘Wae there any writing secured in the pastor’s study ?”’ asked Dickinson. “I believe there was an envelope found with an address upon it.” The tools and the blackboard were then offered in evidence and admitted, when | Mr. Barnes asked some questions in cross- examination. “Why did you go to the church?"” “I was detailed to go by the Chief of Police.” | “At whose solicitation?” «)r. Dickinson's and Mr. Deuprey’s.” «“Are the marks on the door and the door | | frame now in the seme condition as they were | | th es, sir.” “Take this glass and tell me if those two | marks, No. 1 and No. 2, which are claimed to | have been made with a chisel, are not old marks and have been painted over.” | “No. 1 is painted over,” said witness, after a | careful examination. “No. 2 seems to have a | rough surface.” | ~Now close the door and examine No. n and tell me if that is not the mark of a & ‘jimmie’ instead of a chisel.” “Yes, sir; it is; when the door is closed you | can see that it was made by a ‘jimmie’,” “Would it not have been impossible for a flat | instrument to have made that mark?” i PROFESSOR GRAY [Sketched by a AND DR. CHENEY. “Call” artist. ] any one else have access to them before you took this one away? Witne int Yes: the next day there were others hurch who had access to them. nson—How do you know that? 'he doors to the pastor’s study were un- i, and there were other people in the h." re the shoes left in the pastor’s study?” “Yes, sir.” At the conclusion of Sergeant Reynolds’ testimony Mr. Barnes offered the entire door and door frame in evidence as a | people’s exhibit. This was stealing the defense’s thunder and Mr. Deuprey ob- jected. | He said only the parts of the door show- {ing the indentations made by the tools should be admitted. The door was not in the same condition as it was when first dis- covered. Judge Murphy overruled the objection, and the door was admitted. At this_point Juror Smythe interrupted | the question concerning the door with a | thirst for more light on the shoe question. He asked Sergeant Reynolds whether all | the shoes found appeared to belong to the same person. Reynolds answered in the affirmative, and then Sergeant Burke, who was there when the shoes were tound, was called to the stand. “How many shoes were found?"’ asked Dick- iuson. “A couple of pairs, or more.” “Do yx;u know whose they were?” No, sir.” Did you ever learn to whom they belonged?'” Mr. Deuprey objected to this as calling { for the witness’ opinion. Judge MurphyK sustained the objection, remarking tnat the jury could judge of that for tself. “Take the chisel and see if you can fit it to those mar! Deuprey- object to that. The court—The objection is overrnled. Witness (trying the chisel)—The indentations are too big. Deuprey—I move to strike out that. The court—The motion is denied. Mr. Barnes—Now I would like to have the gentlemen of the jury examine these marks on the door before we go further. The court—Is there eny objection to that? Deuprey—We certainly object; thedoor is not | in the same condition. The court—I will overrule that objection, The testimony is that the door is in the same condition. | Dickinson—I understand that on the 19th of September Nir. Seymour and others went there and tried the chisel in the marks. . ! The court—Then 1 should suggest that Mr. | Se{mour be called first. Deuprey—Then we want to put in proof of how the door was torn down and r2moved to the court, showing that it is not in its original condition. The ccurt—I will pass on that testimony when it is offered. Barnes—Then on my motion I will call De- tective Seymour to the stand. Seymour was accordingly sworn. He testified that on the 19th he and Captain Lees and Detective Cody went to the church. They took the chisel with them and fitted the chisel into the marks on the door. All three of them did this in turn. | | lieve the rolleall is correct? | at the left of Dr. Cheney, after the lec- | absent marks had not been erased from the | the tyage marked April 3. Aft The court—Then you only depend upon their statements? | “Yes, sir.” “Were you present when the roll was taken?” asked Deuprey, “Yes, sir.” “Who cailed the roll?” “F. B, Gray called it, standing beside me.” “What do you know of Durrant being pres- ent—of your own knowledge?” “Nothing.” “From all of your investigation, what is your best recollection and belief concerning the ab- sence or presence of this defendant?” Barnes—We object. g The court—I shall allow him to state his recollection, but not his belief. Witness—I have no recollection on that oint. P euprey—Have you mot stated to me that from your knowledge of all the facts you be- Barnes—I object to that as an improper statement and as hearsay. The court—I shall sustain that objection. ythe—Can you call all the students No, sir. Deuprey—You knew Durrant and could call him by name? Witness—Yes, sir. Then Frank P. Gray, who called the roll and marked the absentees, was called to the stand, while Dr. Cheney took a seat ! near by. Mr. Gray testified that he stood ture, ard called the roll at the airection of the lecturer. “State whether or not W.H.T. Durrant is marked present on that roll,” said Deuprey. “There is no mark after his name. Only the absentees are marked.” “Does the roll show that Durrant was | present?” “It does.” “Is that the book in which the roll was called?’ “Yes, sir.” Mr. Barnes was then allowed to ask some questions. . ‘“Have you any personal recollection of Dur- rant being present at that lecture?” asked the | District Attorney. 1 have not.” “Can you say that you saw him there?” “I cannot.”* X “Jsit not a fact that this book is not the | originel book on which the roll was marked that day?” “The marks in this book were not made on the day of the lecture.” Mr. Barnes then took the rolibook, and, after examining it under a glass, handed it back to the wituess and asked him if the page marked March 3L and transferred to er_ considerable discussion on all hands, Mr. Deuprey attempting to stay the | question, it was finally admitted by wit- ness chat the roll of April 3 was by mistake | written on the wrong page and then trans- ferred to the proper page. i Mr. Barnes then objected to the admis- sion of the roll because it was not the origi- nal book of entry. Before the point was passed upon Mr. Deuprey made further inquiries. «“Are you satisfied that the entries and marks | on the page of April 3 are correct?” he asked. | Barnes—We object to his oglulcn‘ Deuprey—EBut you made it The court—Hold on, Mr. Deuprey; there is an objection to be passed upon. There is plenty | of time. Deuprey—But we — o The court—The objection 1s overruled, and we will now take a recess until 2 o'ciock. e e b THE AFTERNOON SESSION. More Discussion of the Rollbook, Which Is Finally Admitted as Evidence In the Case. In the afternoon, after Judge Murphy and the jurors and the lawyers had fought their way through the howling mob out- side, the court called in the Deputy Sheriff in charge and administered a lecture which will probably prove beneficial in making ingress and egress to the courtroom at least safe, if not an agreeable process. Judge Murphy said that he had been compelled to fight his way through the crowd, and said that one of the jurors had made a complaint that he could not get into the courtroom. “I see him here, now, your Honor,” said “And,” concluded Judge Murphy, “if {;m i:_an't'do so I'll call upon the Chief of Po- ice.” Mr. Deuprey then again offerea _the roll- call book as evidence of the defendant’s presence at Dr. Cheney’s lecture. Mr. Barnes objected’'and was permitted to ask some further questions of Student Gray. “You say that you were too busy to write up these names during the month of March?” “I had been too busy.”" “\xlzen did you write these names in the ok 7 “To which names do you refer?"” A“’g‘:e names of the students in the month of pril.” “I cannot fix the date.” “Can you fix it approximately?” “No, sir.”” “Were they written in the book between the 3d and 6th oi April of this year?” 1 believe they were, sir.” “Was it the 3d 4th, 5th or 6th?” “I cannot say positively. Ishould say it was written on Friday evening. April 1.”” “Mr. Gray, did you have a conversation with me last night, and did Jou not state last night in the office of the Chief of Police that you kept a record of the attendance in the rollcall book by making a straight line when a man was not present?” u“]a think we had a conversation of that kind.” “Did I not ask you whether the tally mark which indicated that Durrant’s name had been answered in the lecture was in your handwrit- ing? and did you not inform me that you (]:;)ulrli not tell because it was simply a straight ne?” “Yes, sir.” “Did you not state to me in the office of the Chief of Police, in the new City Hall, in this City and County, in the presence of myself, of Captain Lees and Mr. Seymour—did you not state that yon could not tell whether or not the present mark for Durranton the 3d of April was in your handwriting or not?"” 1 really do not remember having mentioned Durrant’s name in regard to that point. I re- mcmber(}'ou asked me a question as to-wheth- er I could identify it, and 1 saia it would be im- possible because it was merely a straight line.” “How soon after the 3d of April did you change vour system of keeping the tally-roil?” “The change was made at the beginning of the next term, in June.” *“Why did you make the change?”’ “For the Teason that a question had been ssked in regard to the marks from other par- ties.”” “Was not that change introduced on account of the errors that had been made by the other system?”’ No, sir. Not because of the liability to error.” The witness here stated that he con- sidefed the former system of keeping the tally-roll one that was very likely to lead to errors. “Do you know Mr. Ross?” Yes; 1 met him in Sacramento.”” How long have you known Mr. Ross?” “About three years. 3 “How well have you known him?” “About es weil as many other members of the class.” “Have you disc d the subject of the roll- call with Mr. Ros: “I have no recollection of having done so.” “Now, &5 o the erasures. Are there any other pleces where similar ones have been make?” > “The same thing happened last June.” After some questions concerning the erasures made in June, Mr. Deuprey again made offer of the rollbook as evidence. Barnes—I object again to the introduction of this rollbook, because the evidence is that this is not the book of original entry, and that the entries made in it concerning the attendance on the 3d of April were trausferred from an- other page to the one where they are now found. | Therefore, we hold the roll to be in no sense a record of the attendance that day, and hold it t0 be irrelevant and immaterial. The court—The evidence is that these en- tries in both cases were made by the witness; that they were first mede on a wrong page and subsequently changed by the witness 1o the proper page It seems to me an analogous case would be that of a bookkeeper who should make an error in his books and then correct it. In that case, although the erasures could be considered by the jury, it conld hardly be held that the books were not admissible. T believe this to be the ""’f’" view of the matter and will admit the roll. Deuprey—Have you any recollection of Dur- rant being preseni? ¥No, sir.” “‘Have you arecollection of any of the other seventy-four students being present?” “I could not swear as to any of them.” Juror Smyth—In whose charge is the roll- book kept? Witness—In mine. Ikeep it at home. Some- times Dr. Cheney borrows it to examine. Deuprey—Is this the only record of attend- snce kepi? Witness—Yes, sir. The court—I want to understand this matter fully and to have the record show it. Do you have any way of knowing who it is that ‘an- swers to the name called? Can you tell whether it is the proper person or whether some one else answers for the name that is called? Witness—I have no means of telling who answers. Deuprey—But hasn’t an examination been ade of all the seventy-four members of the cldss? And was not the result of that exam- ination that noone could be found who an- swered for Durrant? Bernes—We object. The court—You may bring all the seventy- four members here and ask them, but you can’t ask for this witness’ opinion. Deuprey—Then 1 will ask you, Have you made any such investigation or has any one for you? Witness—No, sir. “Did you answer for Durrant?”’ then asked Deuprey, as mom§h he were starting in on the Lnsk of interrogating all the seventy-four mem- ers. Dr. Cheney then came back on the stand. Mr. Deuprey asked him whether Mr. Gray came to him and asked him about the mistake made in the rollcall, and whether he had then instructed Mr. Gray to make the necessary change or correc- tion. Mr. Barnes objected to this, and the court said it might be answered in so far as witness might have directed the correc- tion. Witness answered that he did order the correction made. “I told him to make the chanfie, and he afterward told me he had done so,” said wit- ness. Juror Smyth—When was this done? *On the 3a of April.” ““At your lectures is there any confusion that | of errors, but because wonld prevent a proper hearing of the roll- call?” asked Deuprey. “No, sir.” Did you have a conversation with General Dickinson last Friday concerning this mat. ter?” “Yes, sir.” “Did you not say to him in the presence of Durrant—" Mr. Barnes (interrupting)—I object to any re- mark made to General Dickinson as being irrelevant. Judge Murphy—T think the objection proper. Mr. Deuprey—Did you not say to him that your rolleall was correet, and from your inves- tigation that it was your opinion that W. IL. T. Durrant was present at your lecture on April 37 District Attorney Barnes objected to this question,and his objection was sustained by Judge Murphy. Thereupon Mr. Deu- vrey offered to frame the question in another manner. Mr. Deuprey—At that conversation at your office on Friday Iast, when General Dickinson, one of -the counsel for defencmmI and myself were present, did you not say to him that”you were satisfied that your roll” was correct. and that you were satisfied thatMr. Durrant was present at your lecture? The District Attorney again put in an objection on the ground that the question was incompetent, irrelevant and hearsay. Upon Judge Murphy sustaining the objec- tion the defense took exception to 'his Honor's ruling. The court—The reason I sustain the objec- tion is because, in my opinion, it tends to elicit sometbing which is in the nature of hearsas. Mr. Deuprey—How many students have you in your class, doctor? ‘About seventy to seventy-four.” “That is a1l.” Upon cross-examination Mr. Barnes offered witness a paper containing, in type- writing, the names of the members of Dr. Cheney's class on April 3, and asked him to mark off on it the absentees. Mr. Deuprey wanted to see the paper first. Then he objected to it on the ground that it might not be a correct list. Judge h?urphy said the witness could pass upon that point. monitor marking those present on the role Who were not in reality present?” Deuprey—We certainly object to that. The courz—(;ron what grounds do you offer the question, Mr. District Attorney? Barnes—To attack the accuracy of the roll- call and to lay the foundation for introducing evidence of particular instances. The court—I will sustain the objection to the question as propounded, “I will withdraw the question in that form,” said Mr. Barnes. ‘‘What is the lengh of time of study before a student receives his diploma?” “Four years.” ““Are the men in or four-year men?” “Three-year men.” ““Was the defendant a member of the senior class?” “He was.”” “‘Now, during the past year, what, if any- thing, Wwas vour experience 1in regard to students answering present for other students, and as to the monitor marking present those who were not present?” Deuprey—We object to that because of its multiplicity, becanse it is unintelligible and confused, and because it is not material and is incompetent. The court—As I understand it, you offer the rolleall for somedpurpo:e. The reason the roll- call is introduced is to prove whether or not the defendent was present at Dr. Cheney’s lecture on April 3— Mr. Deuprey (interrupting)—If your Honor please, you have misstated my position. My proposition is this: I have introduced this rollcall, and this witness has testified that it is correct. I have no objections to the District Attorney asking witness if he can show any places where students have answered for other students when in fact those other stu- dents were not present. I do, however, object 1o questions which do not in any manner re- late to the subject-matter of this rolleall. The court—The District Attorney’s object is evidently to show that the defendant was not at that lecture on the 3d of April. Now you (the defense) offer this roll as veritable proof to show that the defendant was present on that occasion. The District Attorney has the right to show that it is an incorrect rolleall. The only question in my mind is whether the lan- guage used by the District Attorney properly frames the question. If the question was one relating o an experience the experience might be pased on hearsay, and that would be im- proper. If you desire to ask this gentieman if students have answered ‘‘Present” for others who were not present, just for the purpose of saving their credit, that is another matter. For this reason I sustain the objection. Mr. Barnes consulted for a moment or two with Mr. Peixotto and then said he would go no further in this direction at present, but would call Dr. Cheney as his own witness. Oourt then adjourned until this morning. DANGEROUS FUN. Boys Place Pistol Cartridges on the Streetcar Tracks. Boys bent on mischief find a deal of sport in placing pistol cartridges on the car tracks, so that passing streetcars will explode the powder. The practice is quite common of late, and if something is not done by the police to check it, some one may be killed or badly wounded. Day be- your class three-year men, fore yesterday, on Mission street, between | Third and Fourth, one of the horses of the United Carriage Company cartridge by striking it with'his foot .The bullet verforated the hoof of the horse, which would have died from the loss of blood if surgical assistance had not been calied. . The boys fancy that it is fine fun to see the conductor and streetcar passengers jump when the explosion takes place, but the so-called fun is attended with great danger. —————— ‘The Cruiser Philadelphia. The United States cruiser Philadelphis will sail for Puget Sound to-morrow. On the cruise there will be target practice at Port Angeles. The cities of Seattle and Tacoms will be visited by the cruiser. exploded a | WILL STORM THE CITY Mrs. Ballington Booth Coming to Address the High and the Low. JOY AMONG SALVATIONISTS. Will Be Heard in Unlversities, Churches, Halls and at a Mid~ night Meeting. Mrs. Ballington Booth, wife of the | leader of the Salvation Army in America, | will address all classes and conditions of | people on her visit to this City. She will | arrive on the morning of *he 17th of Octo- | ber and it is expected thaton the afternoon | of tnat day she will address the Chamber | of Commerce and in the evening there will be a demonstration of welcome at Metro- politan Temple. On Friday, the 18th prox., she will hold councils with officers of the Salvation Army in the parlors of Golden Gate Hall, and in tne evening there will be a meeting at Golden Gate Hall for which a limited number of invitations will be issued. On Saturday afternoon she will attend a sol- diers’ council at 1139 Market street, and on that evening there will be a second | meeting at Metropolitan Temple. | After the theater-goers have deserted | the Orpheum the army will take posses- | sion and hold a midnight meeting, such as | are held in various parts of the City, in order to draw attendance from the low resorts. This novel feature of army work was but recently inaugurated in California. On Sunday morning and afternoon Mrs. Booth will address audiences in Calvary Presbyterian Church and in the evening at the First Congregational Church. She will visit the Lifeboat and Children’s Home on Monday and will give an address before the Channing Auxiliary. She will speak to the students of Stan- ford University in the afternoon and at the First Presbyterian Church the evenin, of Tuesday, the 22d. She will be accordefi a_ reception by the Century Club on Wednesday afternoon, and that evening will again addressan audience at the First | Presbyterian Cr.urck of Oakland. Thurs- idny will be spent at the Beulah Rescue | Home, Friday afternoon at the State Nor- mal School at San Jose, while in the even- ing she will address the First Congrega- tional Church at Santa Cruz. It is probable that she will speak to the ‘Woman's Christian Temperance Union of San Jose on Friday afternoon and at the Anditorium in the evening. She will also speak in the Baptist Tabernacle of that town on_Sunday, the 27th. The next day she will leave for Sacramento. Mrs. Booth’s visit is in lieu of the divis- n:mI inspection usually made by the gen- eral. — ¢ oo Simmen’s Legal Troubles. The divorce suit of Elizabeth vs. Kasper Simmen was before Judge Seawcll yesterday, and to-day the partnership troubles of Kasper Simmen and Robert Scholz will be aired in an- | other department. Scholz denies Simmen’s charge that he tried to defraud him. THE MORE OF THESE YOUR BOY GETS THE BETTER HIS CHANCE TO WIN A BANK BOOK. With every purchase of $2.50 or more we give a Metal Souvenir. To the three boys who bring us most of these souve- PRIZES $100 nirs before November 2d we will give three bank books as above, deposited in The Hibernia Bank. $75 $50 Needs IF YOUR BOY a suit of clothes or any part of it bring him to us, the Wholesale Makers. Our stock is far and away bigger--our prices ones. simply the Wholesale The saving to you amounts to--1 /. BROWN BROS, & CO Wholesale Manufacturers Props. Oregon City Woolen Mills Fine Clothing For Man, Boy or Child RETAILED At Wholesale Prices 121-123 SANSOME STREET, Bei. Bush and Pine Sts. ALL BLUE SIGNS HARPER’S Dr. Cheney said it was correct, and then checked off the absentees. Mr. Deuprey wanted the paper then marked for identification. Mr. Barnes did not. The court held that the District At- torney had a perfect right to make what the Sheriff. Juror Smythe—Yes, but I had to fight my way in, anyhow. The Judge instructed the deputy to keep the entire corridor clear of all persons ex- cept such as had connection with the case. A use he pleased of the paper, and offer it or not. ‘“How long have you been an instructor at the college, doctor ?’ asked Mr. Barnes. *“Nearly six years.” “What has been your experience, during that time, as to students answering present for those wWho were not present, aud a8 to the Now Re HARPER & BROTHERS, CAPTAIN A.T. MAHAN, U. S. N. % tells about The Future in Relation to American Naval Power ¢ Alone in China” The first of a series of Chinese tales By JULIAN RALPH ‘THREE GRINGOS THE GERMAN PERSONAL RECOL= IN STRUGGLE FOR LECTIONS OF CENTRAL AMERICA LIBERTY JOAN OF ARC Hindoo and Moslem,” by EDWIN LORD WEEKS. *‘At the Sign of the Balsam Bough,” by HENRY VAN DYKE. ** Queen Victoria’s Highland Home,” by J. R. HUNTER. *‘Hearts Insurgent,”” Short Stories, etc. MAGAZINE ady AmMpECc2 AIMWO-00 Publishers, New York