The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, October 3, 1895, Page 5

THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1895. STUDENTS DID NOT ANSWER FOR DURRANT. Corroborating the Evi- dence of Dr. Cheney’s Rollbook. NOTES OF THE LECTURE. Fifty-Eight' Medical Students Examined on Behalf of the Defense. NONE SAW DURRANT THERE. fdiagram of the Interior of Mr. Op- penheim’s Shop Offered in. Evidence. HE DURRANT TRIAL IN A MINUTE—STU- DENTS TESTIFY. of Theodore Durrant for the mur- iche Lamont was continued yester- or the defense, introdnced the fty-eight classmates of Durrant, e remainder of the class of sy 1l be heard. 10se heard yesterday testified that cither present or absent from the Cheney at the Cooper Medical | afternoon of Avril 3, between 5 o'clock. Those who were pres- did not answer ““Here” for Dur- » rolicall, which was taken at the lecture. None of them remem- Durrant was present, and only 1 name any of the other fifty or sixty atavere present. rossexamination Mr. Barnes re- he students who had notes of the em into court at the follow- ® of the students had their s with them, and these were left with he court to be introduced as peo- ibits later on. ram of the interlor of Pawnbroker Op- hop was identified by Draughts- | 1gh and introduced as an exhibit | Me€u! e defe: THE NINETEENTH DAY. The Defense Scoring a Point by Showing = That No One Answered for Durrant. There is no. perceptible fallirg off in the sttendance at the Durrant trial, though the corridors leading to the courtroom are | n ably ciear. The matinee | ses 1e to be more largely patronized by the fair sex, but seats | hin the courtroom are at a premium at | h the morning and afternoon sessions. 0 times the number of persons that can bly be accommodated regularly pre- t themselves for admission, and often | se who come armed with passes from officer of the court are shut out be- cause there is not even available standing- room within, | Durrant’s is a face that grows on one, | and those who have seen him every day for the past two months or more in court | do not now consider him the same mild- | mannered and -innocent-looking young | man that he appeared to them at first | sight. _His manner is as impassive as | ever, though he.seems a trifle more ner- vous and is certainly a little paler than | en the trial began. Yesterday his bosom friend, Arthur Davis, a civil en- gineer, came info court ana took a seat | beside the prisoner. The newcomer, un- | less familiar with the pictures of Durrant, was at a loss to tell which wasthe de- fendani and which the friend. When court convened in the morning | Mr. Deuprey opened a lLne of testimony that consumed the remainder of the day— and made it most uninteresting for the mere spectators. The seventy-four members of the senior class of the Cooper Medical College, as constituted in April last, all of them class- mates of Durrant, are to be called to the witness-stand and made to answer this question: “When the roll was called at the conclu- ion of Dr. Cheney’s lecture on the after- noon of April 3, did you answer for Dur- rant?” Yesterday fifty-eight of the students an- swered this question in the negative. Then Mr. Deuprey asked all of them— except the few that were absent from the lecture—whether they remembered the names of sny ‘other students present. Vith one or twe exceptions they answered this in the wegative. Mr. Barnes questioned all of them con- cerning the notes they took of the lecture, nd those who had their notebooks with them were requested to leave at least that portion containing the memoranda of Dr. Cheney’s lecture with the clerk of the court, while the others were instructed to bring their notes to court st the following wh lently the ‘defense scores a point by proving thatno 6ne answered for Durrant | at the rollcall, but this does not worry the | piosecution in the least, for Mr. Barnes says he expects to prove that Durrant bor- rowed the notes of that lecture from other students in order to- make a showing of having been there to take notes for him- self. Durrant’s testimony as cutlined by Mr. Deuprey will be that he was present at the lecture and teok the notes for himself. During the afternoon the prevailing line of testimony was interrupted long enough to permit the-idéntification and introduc- tion as-an exhibit of the defense a diagram of the interiorof Pawnbroker Oppenheim’s shop. ¢ The trial goes-on this morning. “THE MORNING SESSION. Senlor Class Students Who Did Not Answer for Durrant at Dr. Cheney’s Lecture. Before the work of the day began Mr. Dickinson asked- that young Mr. Lynch, the private secrétary of Pastor Gibson, be excluded from the court-room on the score that he-is to-be called as a witness. Judge Murpby made. the order, and Mr. Lynch left his comfortable chair back of Detec- tive Seymour and went outside to “remain within call.”" * Then began the testimony of a long list of witnesses—all of the senior class of the Cooper Medical College in April last, in fact. They were called upon to say that they did-tiot :dnswer “Here” when the name of Durrant was called by Dr. Gray | at the conclusion of Dr. Cheney’s lecture on the afternoon of April 3 between 3:30 and 4:15 o’clock. Mr. Deupréy bégan the questioning ina manner that betokened a commendable desire for expedition. Beginning with Malcolm O. Austin, he asked: “Were you & mémber. of the senior class of Qc‘u)opeir Medical College in April last?” “Yes, sir.” 3 “Were you'present at Dr. Cheney’s lecture at the, Yt:olle‘z!s on the afternoon of April 37" “Yes, sir.” - ‘““Were you nc«&“nimed with W. H.T. Dur- rant at that time?"” “Yes, sir.” 1 answer for him at rolleall?” !(nuw anybody who did ?” 0'you “No, sir.” .And then, to forestall the cross-ques- tioner, Mr. Deuprey asked: “Do you recollect the presence of any one at the lecture aside from Dr. Cheney, MT. Gray, who called the roll, and yourself?” “No, gir.” “That isall.”” Mr. Barnes—Did you take any notes of that lecture? ‘“Yes, sir.” re those notes atill in existence?” ‘Yes, sir.” o'clock this afternoon.” *Yes, sir. “That is all.” This was the formul® put to most of the Wwitnesses of the senior class. tracted from. The second student was E. Barry. knew Durrant, and did not answer for him at the lecture. Mr. where he sat in the lecture-room. “Within one seat of that assigned to Dur- rant.” “Did you not it in the seat assigned to Dur- | rant?"” *No, sir.” Witness was instructed to bring his notes into court at 2 o'clock. Then W. L. Blodgett was sworn. He did not answer for Durrant. He took notes of the lecture, “You will please bring them into courtat 2 | v Sometimes | it was added to a little, but never sub- | He | Barnes asked him | . H. Crothers didn’t remember any- thing about the lecture, but if he could find any notes on it he would bring them in the afternoon. C. W. Gard did not answer to his name, and a subpena was issued for him. . W. R. Dorr sat near the seat assigned to Durrant, but had no recollection of the latter’s presence or absence. He did not answer for Durrant, and would bring his notes at 2 o’clock. J. J. Gallagher did not answer for Dur- rant, ard would bring his notes in the | afternoon. | of Durrant’s seat in the lecture-room, but | did not remember whether Durrant was | present. He did not answer for Durrant, and would bring his notes of the lecture Thursday morning, he said. Edward T. Glaser did not answer for Durrant, and would bring his notes at 2 o’clock. | G.F.Grabam’s testimony was precisely | the same. He had already been subpenaed as a people’s witness. F. P. Gray did not answer to his name. L. C. Gregory did notanswer for Durrant | and would bring his notes in the afternoon. H. Gunn, the same. C. E. Hablutzel, the same. | K. Haida, a Japanese student, did not answer for Durrant, and had no original | notes of the lecture. G. A. B. Hall sat in his regular seat | behind the seat assigned to Durrant in the | lecture-room. He did not remember as to | Durrant’s presence, but he had a clear view from where he sat. He did not an- swer for Durrant, and would bring his | notes in the afternoon. Student Glaser came back with his note- book of Dr. Cheney’s lecture.. He put his | initials on the pages and the book went in | as evidence. C. A. Dukes sat immediately to the right | | lecture on the afternoon of April 3, he said, and had secured no notes of the lecture. N. M. Nelson s2id he was present ot the lecture and did not answer for Durrant. He did not see Durrant at the Jecture, nor remember what students were there. He had notes of the lecture and would bring them into court Thursday morning. J. H. O’Connor’s testimony was the same, except that he had brought his notes with him. He put his initials on the pages in the notebook that contained the notes of Dr. Cheney’s lecture. Then he cut out the pages and left them behind as a people’s exhibit to be offered as evidence when the time comes. Amos C. Olmsted did not answer for Durrant. He had notes of the lecture, and would bring them Thursday morning. Harry Partridge was tbe. forty-seventh student. He did not answer for Durrant. He is under subpena as a people’s witness. Virgil Peters was very profuse in his ex- planations, but his testimony was the same, in essence, asthe other students’, except that he had his notebook with him. The proper pages were marked, cut out, and left with the clerk. Walter H. Powell was as brief in his answers as Mr. Powers was profuse. After the {)relhuinary questions” Mr. Deuprey asked: “Were you present or absent at Dr. Cheney’s lecture on the afternoon of April 37" ‘Absent.” Mr. Barnes—Did you secure notes of the lefil\[:rg. A. D. Prentice came next. He did not answer for Durrant. He had his notes with him, and they were marked and left with the clerk. R. E. Reese differed only as to his notes. He had destroyed these and kept only an epitome made from the notes taken by MEDICAL STUDENTS WHO APPEARED AS WITNESSES IN THE DURRANT CASE. [Sketched by a *“ Call” artist.] and was instructed to bring them into court at 2 o’clock. Mrs. R. M. G. Boydo did not answer for Durrant, and had her notes with her. Mr. Barnes offered the notes us people’s e hibit Y 1 on cross-examination.’ Mr. Deuprey objected to the notes as & | part of the cross-examination, and then Mr. Barnes offered them as coming from his own witness. But here the lady her- self had a say 1n the matter. She objected to leaving her book in court, because it contained notes of other lectures that she had urzent use for. She offered to_tear out the pages, but the court was unwilling to mutilate the notebook, so & compromise was struck by the witness agreeing to dic- tate her notes to the District Attorney’s stenographer, and Mr. Deuprey agreeing to accept the typewritten copy as of the same force as the original. Miss E. G. Harrison did not answer for Durrant. She took notes of the lecture and was instructed to bring them into court at 2 o’clock Miss M. S. Case did not answer for Dur- rantand was asked to bring her notes in the afternoon. ‘When the name of Miss C. M. Holmes was called at the door there was no re- sponse. An attachment, returnable forth- with, was issued for the young lady, but she came into court a few minutes before it could be served. Meantime Miss M. J. Mahoney said she did not answer for Durrant and that she would bring her notes of the lecture in the afternoon. Miss L. M. Ricker’s examination resulted precisely the'same. G. W. Burgess answered that he had loaned his notes to Student Miller. He would try to get them back, however, and bring them into court. She Miss C. M. Holmes was then sworn. did not answer for Durrant, and promised to bring her notes of the lecture at 2 o'clock. Miss M. A. Fish, aside from the usual answers, said thatthere were no other lady members of the senior class aside from herself and those already examined. She would bring her notes at 2. B. O. Campbell was absent from the lec- ture and procured no notes of it. A. M. Carpenter never takes notes-of a lecture, but gets the material for the exam- inations out of the textbooks. R. A. Carter did not answer for Durrant, and would bring his notesin theafternoon. F. H. Church answered precisely the same questions in the same manner. Charles V. Cross’ testimony is completely summed up in the single word ditto, | F.W. Hahn did not answer for Durrant, and would bring his notes at 2 o’clock. | H.T. Hesser, the same. E. E. Hill was not present at the lecture. | Durrant and would bring his notes in the | afternoon. F. R. Jordan did not answer for Durrant. | He had left his notes in Oakland and | would bring them Thursday morning. Jobhn V. Hughes did not answer for Dur- rant and would bring his notes in the | afternoon. R. Kodama, a Japanese, the same. B. M. Korts, the same testimony. E. A. Kusel, the same. H.J. McNulty, the same. M. rks, the same, except that | his were not originel notes, but copied | from Student Gray | J. €. More did not answer for Durrant and would bring his notes at 2 o’clock. { H. E. Morrison, the same. | Then court adjourned for the noon re- cess, forty-two members of a class of seventy-four having been examined by the defense. e THE AFTERNOON SESSION. A Dilagram of Oppenheim’s Pawn- shop and More Students Who Did Not Answer for Durrant, When the afternoon session opened Mr. | Deuprey asked for the privilege of break- ing in on the students’ line of testimony by the introduction of a witness to identify | a-diagram of Oppenheim’s pawnshop. | Accordingly Civil Engineer McCullough | was recalled and examined briefly by Mr. Dickinson. Witness exhibited his diagram, drawn from measurements taken by him in Op- penheim’s shop, and it was admitted evidence as an exhibit of the defense. Witness said that Oppenbeim showed him the location of the chair, the counter, | the table and other movable things. The distance from the chair occupied by Oppen- heim when Durrant entered his store to the center of the sidewalk in front was 10 feet. The width of the door was 2 fest9 inches, the depth of the windows 2 feet 6 inches, the witness testified. He described the appointments of the store in detail. Mr. Peixotto asked a few questionsin cross-examination, and reserved the right to call upon Oppenheim to say whether the diagram is correct. R. Murphy Jr., another student, was .mlle . He was absent from Dr. Cheney’s James V. Hughes did not answer for | Olmsted, Garvin and himself. The epi- tome was not wanted. v William Wallace Roblee did not answer for Durrant and had destroyed his notes for that lecture. J. B. Rodgersanswered in the same man- ner, only that he had brought along his notes. They were marked and left with the clerk, book and all. F. W. Ross did not answer for Durrant. He would bring his notes with him in the morning. Mr. Deuprey told witness to hold lumself in readiness for examination upon another point. H. Schlageter, the student who had the conversation with Durrant concerning the mectirg with Blanche Lamont on the morning of April 3, was the next witness on the same point. He did not answer for Durrant, he said. F. E. Rumwell did not answerand would bring his notes in the morning. W. R. Scroggs’ testimony was the same, except that he had brought along his notes. These were left with the court. C. L. Sexton did not answer for Durrant and brought his notes along. They were left behind. K. Sago was called next, but before he could put in an appearance Judge Murphy announced that as one of the jurors had an important business engagement, court Wwould adjourn until this morning. Mr. Sexton was the fifty-eighth student examined, out of & class with a total mem- bership of seventy-four. During the examination of the last student by Mr. Deuprey, Juror Smyth 1n- terrupted to remark to counsel that his question of every witness, whether they had heard any one else answer for Durrant, might be misconstrued into an acknowl- edgment that Durrant did not answer for himself. Mr. Deuprey thanked the juror for his suggestion, and declared that there was no such intention in his question, and that Mr. Durrant would testify that he an- swered the rollcall for himselt. The Feast of Succoth. Divine service will be held in all Hebrew temples this morning at 10 o'clock. Sermons will be delivered at the Temple Emanu-El by Rev. Jacob Voorsanger, at the Synagogue Sherith Israel by Rabbi Jacob Nieto, at the Temple Beth Israel by Dr. M. 8.Levy and at the Synagogue Ohabai Shalome by Rabbi Julius Fryer. The feast will terminate this evening for the reform section of the community Lnswmob row evening for the orthodox-element. It will be resumed next Wednesday with the observe :finc‘i of the eighth and ninth days of the fes- val, SNOOK WILL NOT TESTIFY He Did Not See Durrant and Blanche Lamont Together on April 3. DR. GIBSON TO BE A WITNESS. Accused’s Notes on Dr. Cheney’s Lecture Compare With Those of Other Students. | | | The efforts of the prosecution to secure Harry E. Snook as a witness in the Dur- rant case will likely prove of no avail, for he himself says his testimony is of no value, and he was so informed by Captain Lees. He may be called to testify that he has seen Durrant and Blanche Lamont to- gether near the church, to combat the | assertion of the defense that the two were never together in that locality, but he will not be called to prove anything which may have happened upon the fatal 3d of April. Captain Lees had been misinformed when he made his statement Tuesday evening that Snook was positive about the date. Speaking of the stories which have been printed about what he was expected to tes- tify to, Mr. Snook said last night: “lt is true that I have been seen by Detective Seymour in regard to a report that I had seen Durrant and Blanche Lamont near the church on April 3. I know I had seen the two together near the church, and it occurred to me that it might have been upon that day, because I thougnt I had been near there then. I have since found that if I was there at all it must have been upon_ April 4, when Blanche Lamont was already dead. “The story started in this way: The Epworth League of my church—the Grace Methodist Episcopul—met on the evening of April 2. At that meeting an assessment of $2made by the Epworth League Al- liance was ordered paid, and the next d as I thought, 1 callea on Miss Daisy V son, the treasurer of the league, who had not been present at the meeting, to collect the amount. She lives at 2054 Bartlett street, which is near Twenty-second. She was not at home, so I came down again to | Mission and Twenty-first streets, and | there I saw her with two friends. I told her of my errand to her house. She went home, and soon after—it must have been between 4 and 5 o’clock, Miss Wilson says—I went out to her house again and got the $2. | “I thought all_this happened on April | 3, and as fknow I had seen Durrant and | Miss Lamont together I thought it might have been on that occasion. Captain Lees asked me to assure myself of the exact date, and on comparing notes I have come to the conclusion it must have been April 4. Miss Wilson’s books show that the | money was paid on April 4, and she says the eniry was made the day the money was paid. She says, too, that the ladies with whom I saw her on Missiop and Twenty-first streets were her cousins, and that they had just returned from a trip in the country. They know they returned on April 4. Again, the Epworth League Alliance met on the evening of April 4, and it is quite probable that L let the col- lection of the money go until the day of the meeting. “‘Another thing—I have looked over my | books and 1 find nothing which woull bring me out,in the vicinity of the E manuel Church on April 3, so, if I went at all, I must have gone to collect the money and thet was on the 4th. When I told this to Captain Lees the day before yester- day he said my testimony would do no 00d, as it must have been the day after %lanche Lamont was murdered that I was out near the church.” | Snook is an undertaker, whose place of | business, the Golden Gate Undertaking Company’s parlors, is at 2419 Mission, near Twenty-first street. He knew Durrant and Blanche Lamont well, and he has seen them together in the vicinity of the Em- manuel Church. He knew he was out near the church himself some time soon after April 2, and the suggestion of the murder connected the two tacts. During the examination of the students of Cooper Medical College yesterday one of the i;)uestions most frequently asked by Mr. Deuprey was whether or not the wit- ness remembered that sterilization of milk was one of the topics discoursed upon by Dr. Cheney during his lecture on April 3, when ‘“The Preparation of Infant Food With Regard to Making It Pure” was the subject. The question in itself apparently had’ little significance, but it will bave a strong bearing upon the defendant’s case in proving that he was present at the lecture. ! The notes of the students who were pres- ent that day show that the subject in chief | was as quoted, and that the following | formed the sub-topics of the lecture: “The Arnold Steam Sterilizer,” *‘Pas- teurization,” “Filterization Recommended | Before Pasteurization, by Dr. Seibert of | New York™; “The Quantity of Food re- uired by Infants According to Age.” Juring his remarks on the latter topic the professor gave his own views with refer- ence ta it together with those of Dr Smith- kins of New York, and then touched upon the rule adopted by J. Louis Smith in the same connection. These things will be shown by the notes of those students who were directed to ap- pear again to-day with the original notes they took on the lecture. When these notes have been introduced in evidence the defense will undertake to prove that | Dr. Cheney’s rollcall is correct and that Durrant must have been present at the lecture, by offering in evidence his own notes. It is expected by the defense that this | hand when he will constitute one of the strongest points in fayor of an alibi, as Durrant’s notes show that these were the various topics of the lecture, substantially the same as do the notes of the other students. Ever since the trial of Durrant began Robert M. Lynch, the private secretary of the pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church, has been a regular attendant_and close observer of the proceedings. Yesterday morning before any witnesses were called Attorney Deuprey called the attention of the court to Mr. Lynch’s presence, and asked that he be exciuded, as he would be called as a witness by the defense. On this showing the court requested Mr. Lynch to leave the room till he was called as a wit- ness. Mr. Lynch exgresied surprise that snch action should ve been taken inst him, as he could not conceive how he could serve either side as a witness, not having come to San Francisco from Chico until the 17th of April, some days after the discovery of the murder of Minnie Wil- liams, the later of the two atrocious crimes. He stated last evening that he did not pro- pose to be excluded from hearing the pro- ceedings and would present his case per- sonally to Judge Murphy this morning and réquest that the order debarring him from being present at the trial be with- drawn. Renewed interest having attached to the connection of the Rev. J. George Gibson with the trial of Durrantin view of the implications _contained in the opening statement of Eugene Deuprey, the coun- sel for the defense, it was suggested to him yesterday, through his secretary, Robert N. Lynch, thatan alibi published at this time would be most opportune and would largely serve to dissipate any suspicion against him that might have been created in the public mind by the imputations of the defense. In his refusal to consider this suggestion favorably Mr. Lynch said: The reasons we do not care to give an alibi or other defense to the public are as follows; “First—Dr. Gibson is not accused of anything by the authorities, and therefore we do not consider it necessary to establish an alibi. ‘‘Second—We do not think any fair- minded person who has considered the case and the wild statement of Eugene Deuprey believes Dr. Gibson has any con- nection with the murders. *‘Third—As the defense has opened up an attack we prefer to wait till they make a direct attempt to prove their assertions. It will be time enough for us to disprove them by a complete alibi. W henever they fully show their hand we will not be slow to show ours.”” It is expected that the defense will take up the matter of the handwriting on the wrapper in which Blanche Lamont’s rings were sent to Mrs. Noble, as soon as the re- maining witnesses from Cooper’s Medical College are disposed of. The examination of the remaining sixteen students will probably consume this morning’s session of court and then the evidence calculated to cast suspicion upon Dr. Gibson will most likely be introduced by the defense. A subpena was issued yesterday for Dr. Gibson’s appearance in court fo-day, but up to a late hour last night he had not been served. He was expected to be on wanted this afternoon. A most sensational phase of the trialis looked for when Dr. Gibson faces Durrant’s lawyers in court. Among those visitors to the trial yester- day who occupied seats of honor was Bert Lewis, the merchant tailor from Stockton, whose picture was published in another morning paper together with that of the accused as showing a remarkable resem- blance between the two individuals. It was stated by that publication that the de- fense bad made a search for persons re- scmbling Durrant and had singled out the Stockton tailor as one, the object being to demonstrate how easy it might have been for those witnesses to have been mistaken who testified to seeing Durrant with Blanche Lamont. Mr. Lewis visited the courtroom to see the man who had been said to be his double and was given a seat by the clerk of the department, directly in front of Durrant, where he could bave a full view of the accused, When the two men were seen together it was clear there was nota line of resemblance between them. Lewis was introduced td Durrant’s attorneys,with whom he joked laughingly of the absurdity of the story. He will not be calied by the defense for the purpose that has been stated. E. Diggins, a student at Cooper Col- lege, who, it has been stated, would give testimony important to the defense, has received an anonymous letter, in which the writer threatens that if he does testify favorably to the accused the women of San Francisco will stick him to death with hat- pins. LOOKS LIKE DURRANT. A Misfortune That Is Causing a Stockton Young Man An- noyance. STOCKTON, Car., Oct. 2—Much annoy- ance has been caused to a young gentle- man named Lewis in this city by the fact that several pictures have been published drawing attention to his personal resem- blance of Durrant. Before those pictures were prinied very little attention was paid to his coming and going, but since that time whenever he appears at the railroad station or elsewhere in public interested crowds of sightseers follow him. They all want a chance to see the man who looks like Durrant. Policemen Fined. The Police Commissioners met last night and listened to the charges against four policemen. Patrick Sullivan and Nathaniel Greene were charged with being found absent from their posts and were each fined $50. Frank W.Smith and James F. Mackey were jointly charged with being in a saloon while on duty, and the charge was dismissed. e To Remove an Administrator. A. Soher has petitioned the Superior Court to remove E. Soher from the position of adminis- trator of the Lewis Soher estate. He alleges that the property has been mismanaged. A YOUNG MAN IN STOOCKTON BY NAME OF LEWIS RESEMBLES DURRANT AND AFTER HAVING HIS PORTRAIT PUBLISHED IN SEVERAL SAN FRANCISCO PAPERS, THE ABOVE REPRE- SENTS HIS PREDICAMENT STREET. WHEN HE APPEARS ON THE NEW TO-DAY., Rosenthal's ‘ Without None % This Genuine g Trade- ) Mark. TRACE MARR Crowded to the Doors Our new departure in Shoe selling—that is, offering our immense stock of choicest lines of Shoes at such low prices—has made our Great Reduction Sale A Enormous Sueeess 'Special : This LAIRD, SHOBER & MITCHELL'S patent leather foxed Louis XV heel but- ton Boots, former price €8 50. Broken lot toclose N D QO out the line, Teduced to... KUTZ_& CO.S CALIFORNIA MADE extra fine Dongola button Shoes, kid or cloth tops, long patent leather tips, poin $l.85 d or square toes.. . A Pair Inferior shoes similar in style are ad- vertised by competitors as a bargain at $2.50. We save you 65 cénts on other dealers’ lowest prices. LADIES’ GLACE KID OXFORD TIES, Louis XV heels, medinm pointed toe, natty patent leather tip. 4$3.00 LADIES' ¢ Dongola kid Oxfords, pointed or square toes, V- shaped patent leather 5 pe o SEan s l' 0 We can here list but the merest hint of the numerous bargains that crowd ourstore. Call and be c vinced that our shoes and prices are exactly as represented. Rosenthal’s Leading and Largest Shoe House On the Coast. 107-109-111 Kearny St. Near Post. We Have No Branches. Out of town orders solicited and filled same day as received. LEADERS FOR THIS WEEK. HAT DEP'T. Men’s Trilby Hats, Children’s Leather Caps, gold band. LAMP DEP’T. Banquet Lamp, with 14-Inch silk shade...$4/00 Bisc Table Lamp, shade to match......... 260 HOUSEHOLD GOODS. 50 w .81 6-pint “Nutrizio” Coffee-pot.. 75 6 styles Cut-glass Salts and Peppers. . 25 BRIC-A-BRAC. 10 styles Iridescent Vases. 85 7-inch Glass Vases 15 LEATHER GOODS. Genuine Seal Combination Purse. Lizard-skin Combination Purse. TOILET ARTICLES. California Violet Water... Dairy-made Soap, 8 cakes for. . CLOCK DEP’T. Nickel Alarm Clocks, gnaranteed. . 75 Ebonized Mantel Clocks, 11x1634, guar- ant eneeerrenssn.§6 00 GLOVE DEP'T. 4-button, 8-row, embroidered 81 00 4-button’ Suede, all shade: . T8 SPECIAL SALE DAYS! On Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of éach week we offer Special Bargains, and not infres gueatly sell may of our best lines at half-price. See our window display on SPECIAL SALE DAYS. ZEBIMatKels St KRAGEN FURNITURE (0. Wishes to Announce Its Removal to 1043 MARKET STREET, Between Sixth and Seventh (OPPOSITE J. J. O’BRIEN’S) ‘Whereby such an enormous saving in rent and other expenses has been ef- fected that we can now sell goods in our line cheaper than ever before. For example, we quote of 7 pieces, $20 Hardwood Bedroom Sets **7Riss Parlor Sets, from.........$25 up OTHER GOODS IN PROPORTION. Everything Marked in Plain Fi CASH OR INSTALLMENTS. OPEN EVENINGS.