The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, October 12, 1895, Page 8

THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1895. WHAT DURRANT SAID TO MISS CUNNINGHAM, Mr. Barnes Asks if He| Saw the Body in the Belfry. THE PRISONER DENIESIT. Mr. Barnes Asks if He Said He Saw Blanche Lamont Murdered ? DURRANTS CURIOUS DENIAL. The Long Cross-Examination Ended With a Series of Startling Questions. THE DURRANT TRIAL IN A MINUTE—MR. BARNES' SURPRISE. In the trial of Theodore Durrant, charged with the murder of Blanche Lamont, the long | nation of the defendant was con- 3 afterncon with a most sur- series of questions. | rnes began them by asking again about er written to his lawyers to be opened 1 the case of his conviction. Durrant denied any such letter. Barnes fixed the dateand place and | ssked Durrant if he did not show an envelope | addresed in this manner to Miss Carrie Cun- | ningham, the newspaper reporter. | Durrant denied it. Mr. Barnes then asked the witness if on Oc- tober 1, in the County Jail, he did not tell Miss Cunningham that while he was working at the sunburners he heard a noise and went 1o the opening in the beliry and there saw the | dead body of Blanche Lamont. Durrant’s answer was rambling and irrele- vant. Judge Murphy ordered him to answer yesorno. He then said “No.” When he left the stand Witness Lenihan was recalled, but told nothing he had not already testified to. Court then adjourned till Tues- day morning. A S THE TWENTY-FIFTH DAY. A Hard Time for the Defendant. Mr. Barnes' Surprising Ques- tions About the Belfry. Durrant was “rattled”’ yesterday—which means, in plain English, that he became y at last under the severe cross-ex- amination of District Attorney Barnes, and lost his presence of mind and rare self- ion to a degree where he was led to ngs that a cautious man should not say th have said. There is no denying. Indeed, the wonder is that he stood it so well as he did, for the inquisitor pressed him hard and drove home point after point with telling force. And when it was all over, late in the afternoon, it was Dur- rant who left the battle heated, and Mr. Barnes who smiled complacently. The prisoner sat down beside his mother and fanned himself. Barnes did not drive home his points with sledge-hammer force, but he had a way of emphasizing them that was none | the less effective—perhaps even more so to | an intelligent jury like this one. He led up gradually to each point and then when he had almost asked the last question about it he went back again, started all over on a new tack, but tinally arrived again at the same psint, hit the same nail | again on the same spot, but with more than double force. And where the points sought to be emphasized were of great im- portance the tack was correspondingly lengtny. It was so with the most startling and | sensational point made in the whole trial. Thursday evening Mr. Barnes asked the witness if he had not written a statement to his lawyers and addressad it, “To be opened only in case I am convicted,"orl words to that purport. { Durrant denied it. Barnes pressed it. Durrant reiterated his denial. Court ad- journed. In the morning Barnes had | apparently forgotten it. He went on through the day, asking Durrant, for instance, if his notes of Dr. lecture on April 3, which have been offered in evidence for the defense aus proving his alibi, were the notes taken by him at that lecture in his own hand- writing. Durrant said they were. Barnes made a | small tack and led the witness to say that Le had made some changes in the book or | some additions to it after April 3. Barnes took a larger tack, the angle of which was that Durrant had confessedly asked to see thenote-books of twoother studentsin order to carry out the instructions of his lawyers and make sure that his own notes were complete. Then as to the lecture on April 8, when Durrant had asked Potter to have him marked present on the rollcall whep he was absent. It was Durrant himself who volunteered this information Thursday. Yesterday Mr. Barnes returned to ‘it on one of his wide tacks, and when the angle was reached it turned out, by Durrant’s own admission, that the reason he was not marked present on that rollcall, in spite of Potter's assistance—which fact tended to show the validity of all rollcalls at the col- lege—was that during the lecture Durrant had been called upon for a question by the lecturer. He failed to respond, and the “‘present” mark opposite his name was erased. ““And if you had not been called up for quizzing,” asked Mr. Barnes, “you would still be marked present on that rolicall?” I suppose I would,” was the answer. But not until the very end of his long in- quisition of the defendant did Mr. Barnes reach the angle of his greatest tack—his most startling surprise. Gradually he worked back to the point where court had adjourned on the previous day—that point about the envelope addressed to his attor- neys. Mr. Dickinson saw what was coming and tried to head it off by an objection, claiming that “even if there had been such an envelope it would be in the nature of a privileged communication.” The contents of 1t would, the court re- marked, but that point had not been reached. Itnever was. Mr. Barnes never meant it should be. It was only intro- ductory to the main question, which was, in brief: “Did you not, on October 1, in the County Jail, tell Miss Cunningham that you heard a noise while fixing the sunburners; that you went to the belfry and there you saw the body of Blanche Lamont Jying?”’ Durrant denied it, but in a rambling fashion, with more eagernessin his faceand manner than he had previously exhibited, and with a confession that he did argue the point with Miss Cunningham. Barnes repeated the question in another form, and the defendant repeated his rambling answer with more irrelevancies. And in the end Judge Murphy took Il Land, and told the witness to answer the question “yes” or ‘“no,” and Durrant finally used the simple negative. ‘I'his was the sensation of the day, if not the beginning of the sensation of the whole case. In rebuttal Mr. Barnes will offer to prove the truth of the question which Dur- rant denied. All this came out at tbe close of the afternoon session. Then the witness left the stand, and in a short time court ad- journed tili Tuesday morning. s S THE MORNING SESSION. Barnes Drives the Witness to Eva- slons and Protests Over His Notebook and His Notes. There were but few peovle in the court- room when court opened yesterday morn- ing, and these few were struggling for the last seats still vacant. There was no one standing after the jury was called, and the air in the courtroom gave promise of being bearable during the morning. Judge Murpby was the one to speak first. ““There was & question propounded by you,” he said to the District Attorney, ‘and an offer of handwriting, which was not settled at the time. Do you still persist in your offer?” ~I withdraw the offer,” said Mr. Barnes. “Very well, proceed with the case,” said the court, and Durrant took the stand. “When you went to the church on April 3, 1895, and changed your watch from your vest- pocket to the pocket of your coat, it ‘was then you noticed that it was five minutes to 52"’ “Yes, sir.” “Is this your watch?” “Yes, sir.” “How did you wear it in your vest?” The witness placed his watch i his vest pocket asit was on the day in the church, and then Barnes offered it in evidence as people’s exhibit 63. There was no objec- tion, and_the watch joined the drawer full of miscellaneous articles which form part of the case. “And was that the time you reached the church?” “‘About that time.” ‘ What time after you entered the south gate did you look at your watch ?” ““About two or three minutes.” “Then you arrived at the south gate about §1X Or seven minutes to 57" “Yes, sir; about that time.” “Within a minute 2"’ es, sir.” “Do you know Mr. Morrison, a reporter on THE CALL?” “No, sir; at least, not by name.” “Did you not, afier your arrest, state to Mr. Morrison that you went to the church about :30 o'clock to finish some work you were doing?” £ “I remember saying Eomethinfi like that; ll.\ul I meant that was the time I left the col- ege."” “‘Is the statement correct?” “It may be, as far as it goes. 1 left to go there.” ““Did you not use the words, ‘4 or 4:30" 7" “I have norecollection of using those words." “As a matter of fact, did you not use tiiose words?” “I cannot state as a matter of fact. Iam pretty sure I did not use the words, ‘enter the church.'” “As a matter of fact, state whether or not you told Mr. Morrison you went into the church between 4 and 4:30 o’clock 7 “I did not.” gt “Did you go there between 4 and 4:30?" “I did 1 was on 1y way there then ave you heard the testimony of Heigh H. Irvine, an Examiner reporter?”’ do not know sny one of that name.” ‘He was called here and testified on Septem- ber 237" “Idon’t remember. “Did you tell him you entered the church be- tween 4 and 4:30 in the afternoon of April 37" “No, sir. Any words like that that were taken down meant when I left to go there.” Barnes read from the transcript of Ir- vine's testimony, where he had told how Durrant said he had come to the church at 4:30 in the afternoon of April 3, 1895, and had gone to the library an had taken off his coat. “Did you make such a statement?” asked Barnes. “Mr. Irvine’s notes are not full notes.” “Did you make such a statement?” “I did not make that statement.” Vhen you boarded the Mission-street car th Miss Lamont did you get inside?"” “Inside—yes.” “What side did you sit on?” “On the right-hand side as you go in,” )0 you know Miss Jennie Stott?” es, sir.”’ “Do You know if you saw her then?” “No, sir, I don’t remember. ‘At Mission and Ninth streets did you and Miss Lamont change cars?” s, Sir,”’ Where did you si “In front, on one i “Did you'see Mr. Slaggerty then?” “Yes, sir.” “Did Miss Lamont wear goggles? “I think she did.” “Did she wear them on that morning?” “I think she had them on.” “Were they not off on that occasion?”” “To the best of my knowledge, they were on,” “Which side of the seat aid you it on?"’ “The inside.” “When was it after April 3 that you heard you were connected with Miss Lamont’s disap- pearance?” “AfQr my name came out in the papers. When 1t was told I went to school with her.” “Did you ever fix the stopcock on the chan- delier in the vestibule?” Dickinson objected to this as not being proper cross-examination, but the obje tion was overruled, and the witness an- swered: “I had occasion once to huut for a Jeak in the chandelier, but I never found it. The leak was 100 high up.” “Did you ever get up high to fix 1t?” “I object,” said Dickinson. pjection overruled,” seid the court. sir,” answered Durrant. «Did joi everspeak to any onesbout the chandelier or the stopcock?” ““I have discussed the chandelier, but no par- ticular part of it.” “Did you ever discuss it with Sademan— either the chandelier or the stopcock?"” “Not the st0peock.” “When you came down from the ceiling after fixing the electric spark where were you when you first saw George King?'’ “By the folding door. I saw him through the glass in the door.” l“Cgluld you see George King through the glass?” Not to recognize him, no.” ‘ouldayou see any one?”’ “I could see his shadow.” “*How far were you from the door?’’ “I was coming along beside the door.” ““How far were you from it?” “One or two feet.” ““What design is on the glass in the door?” “Some small design. I don’t exactly remem- ber what it was like, but if a person placed his fiyelcm“ to the giass he could gee through the esign.” ‘Did you place your eye close to the glass?” “Not particularly; I just glanced through.” “Was the place where you glanced through on a level with your eye or below it?” “About level with it."” “When you came to the entrance between the doors, who spoke first?” “I did.” “What did Jou say?” 1 said, ‘Hello, George!’ »* “And w*nt did he eay?” ‘;Hs anSwered and said, ‘You're looking pate.” 3 It was the time 5 nd what did you say then?” 1 said, ‘You’d Iook pale too if you had been through what I have.”” “Did not he speak first?’ Vot to my knowledge.” ! i_v:} dyou ear King's testimony?” did.” “‘Was he mistaken when he said that he spoke first?” ‘‘He might have spoken first, and I not hear bim. To the best of my kiowledge I spoke st “Did he make a mistake when he says you paused before coming in?"” “He most certainly did.” "§'ou caime straight through the door?” “Yes, si1.”” “Why did you go in to see King?” For 1o reason in particular.” “Did you come to King to ask him to get you e bromo seltzer?”’ “Not particularly.” ““It just flashed across you about the bromo seltzer?” ““Yes, after we spoke of packing the organ downstairs.” 'You knew King was to be there on the Sun- previous?” “On ey Suna “On that Sunday did you know he was to be there on Wednesday?"” 4 “I thought it most likely that he would be there then.” "Wh{ did you think it likely?" . “Well, it was the middle of the week, and I knew he was going to be at the church some- where about that time.” “Did you know at what hour he would be Te “No, sir.” “Did you know what his duties were as org;um ‘of the chureh?” “Yes, sir.” “Did you know what time he was at liberty?” 0, sir. He had no occupsation.” “}ze had no occupation at that time?” No, sir.” *If you knew he would be at the church on April’3, why were you going fo call ot his house?"’ “To_ let him know I would be there so he would be sure to come.” “Why didn’t you call to see George King on your way to church?” “I was not sure that_he was at home, and I wanted to be there at 5 o’clock.’ “Didn’t you know there was a lecture at the college between 5 and 5:307"” “No, sir.” “‘Did not Dr. Pond lecture there that aiter- noon?”" “No, sir.”” “‘Look at your card.” “Dr. Pond did not lecture ther “Did any other doctor lecture? *Yes, sir.” ““Was it not included ’"Jo‘“ course?” “No; my course was ended.” “Coula you have stayed if you desired?” ““I could have stayed through the whole thing 1f 1 desired.” “How that card?” e of your arrest?” g0, “Why did you get it “I got it to refeesh my memory as to the time of the lectures.” “And you have been enabied to refresh your memory from that card for a month vast?”’ “I could if I so desired; yes.” Barnes called the attention of the wit- ness to the testimony of George King, where he said the folding-doors were onen and that Durrant paused and stood a moment in the space and then passed through. “Is that .t'eu(mony correct ?”’ asked Barnes. o, sir.”. Is it not & fact that you stopped in the door- I id not stop.” “Not a moment?” wa; “I know of none that does.” “Did you ever attend any lectures in which it was exp]itlnedl" No, sir.” “With whom did you have the conversation about {t?”" ¢“With Dr. West.” “Do you mean the Dr. West who murdered Ads Gilmore?” “Yes, sir.” “When did you diseuss it with him?” ““Last night in the jail.” ‘Did you ever discuss it before the 3d of April?” iNot tomy recollection.” ©What was your idea in taking it?” “To allay my headache and seftle my stomach?"” “Did you read the advertisement when you opened the bottle?” “I did not.” :‘Did you ever read the advertisement?” “Not of bromo-seltzer.” ““Was there a paper like this filhowlng an ad- vertising circular) in your bottle?” n"lflsunpon s0—if there was one in that bot- e. ‘‘Was that conversation with Dr. West in the Couxntv Jail the only one you had about it?” “No, sir.” “With whom else? “With Dr. Perkin: ““When ?"” “On the eveuing of April 4. “‘Where does he reside?” “On Post street.” “is he a doctor of medicine?’ 0, sir; he has been a druggist for years.” Do youknow Dr. Gilbert F. Grabam?” i do *How long have you known him?”’ “Six months.” mflp you ever discuss the subject with m “I have.” (Hending witness his notebook). ‘‘Are these the notes of Dr.Cheney’s lecture of April 3 taken by you at that time?” “Yes, sir. “Wese they taken by you at that time?” “They were.” ‘IK: this the notebook you used at that time?” ‘Are these notes in your handwriting?” “They are.” ‘‘Are these notes in the same condition now that they were on April 37" ‘“In the same condition?” repeated the wit- ness. {:‘:re them with mine; { had noidea of an alibi en.” “:ve““ idea did you have in wanting the otes?” “I was following instructions.” “What were these instructions?” “To get notes of Dr. Cheney’s lecture and com"?leze my own notes and compare them." *‘Whose instruetions were these?” “One of my lawyers.” “When?” “When my cnlle&e things were sent to Gen- eral Dickinson’s office.” “g‘id {ou get any one’s notes to compare?” “No, sir.” “Did you get Graham’s notes?” No, sir.” 'Did you speak to any one about getting notes?”’ No, sir.” Did you speak to Gallagher about them?” Yes; I spoke to him. What did he say?” ‘‘He called at the City Prison and asked me 1f Ihad notes.”” “What did you say?” “I said I didn’t know.” “What else was said about notes?” i¢The subject was dropped then.” “When did you first find out whether you had notes?” “‘My attorneys notified me.” “You knew that you attended the lecture?” “Yes, sir.” “You knew that you took notes?” “How do vou expeet me to remember all those things in all that excitement?” “I don’t’ expect anything, I merely ask, did you?” said the District Attorney. Dickinson—I object to that way of question- ing the witness. The couri—There has been no {mpropriety, general; I will correct it when there is. Witness (answering)—I did not know at that time whether I had taken notes. In the ex- citement [ had forgotten. “Did you know on the 4th of April that you had inken notes ou the 347" “Yes, sir.” “Yes, sir.” “On the 7th?” “Yes, sir.” *“On the 8th?” “Yes, sir.” “The 10th?" “Yes. sir.” “Not & moment.” ““You passed directly through?” “1 passed directly through.* “What more conversation did you have be- fore King went for the bromo seltzer 2" I don’t recollect any special conversation.” “The last portion of the conversation fo which I refer was your answer that he would look pale too if he hiad been through what you had.” Now what other conversation was there?” “Imade a remark about the escaping of the as, and said it made me sick. Then I asked if e wouldn’t get me a bromo seltzer, and also about bringing the organ downstairs. *The conversation about the organ took place first, did 1t not ? “1 think so.” “What clothes did you own or have in the house belonging to you on the night of April 3,18957" I object,” said Dickinson, *on the ground thet the question is immaterial.” “‘Objection overruled,” said the court. nswer the question,” said Mr. Barnes. ‘This cutaway coat and vest of dark material, a Prince Albert coat and vest of the same material, which went with these trousers, & dark pair of trousers for special occasions, and & biue black pair which I wore all that day.” Did you have an overcoat?”’ Yes, sir.” “‘The one in evidence?” Yes, sir.” Lyd y‘oll have any other overcoat?” No, §ir." Did you have any other clothes?"” ‘No, ‘sir. Oh, yes; I had another pair of trousers, but they were 00 old to be of any us e. How old were they?” Too old to wear outside.” ere they months old or years old?” “Years old.” “They were practically worn out?”’ “Not practically worn out, but out of style.” “Were you &t the prayer-meeting on Sunday following April 37" I was." “Where were lou sitting?” “To the left of the entrance door and about the middle of the room.” ““Were you seated near to where Mre. Moore was sitting?” “I was just behind her.” ‘‘How long had you been sitting there when Mrs. Noble came in 7’ “Only a little while.” ‘‘How long was she sitting there before you spoke to her of Blanche and asked if she was coming there?” “I spoke to her a8 she passed a com- munication to Mrs. Moore.” “When did she pass the communication to Mrs. Moore?” “Soon after sne came in.” “Did you speak to her because you thought the communication referred to Blanche mont?"”’ *“1 did not know what it referred to.” “How long after she passed the note did you &peak to her?” “Just after. ‘‘Are you aware of, or do you know, the basis or u‘clka‘i principle of bromo-seltzer 7" “Yes, Sir. " oon 5 " Dickinson—T object to the question as incom- petent, irrelevant and immaterial, and not Proper cross-examination. Barnes—I want to test the knowledge of this- witness. He was at w“ff” for three years. He was almost a doctor. He testifies that he was overcome by gas, so much 80 that it gaye him nausea and made him sick athis stomach ; also that he asked George King to get him some bromo seltzer for the purpose of settling his stomach. I have a right 10 show that he has & knowledfe of this particular drug, and that he prescrilbed it for himseif, as he says when he was overcome by gas, as a proper remedy. Ihave aright tosee whether or not he thought it & proper remedh The court—I think I will overrule the objection. Dickinson—I except. Durrant rose to his feet as Judge Mnrphiy overruled the ohjection of his counsel. He had taken an intense interest in Barnes’ words, and when the guestion was allowed he broke in: “If your Honor please—"" “8it down,” said the Judge, “consult your counsel, sud let them say what 1s necessary,’”’ "l,)o you know the make-up of bromo-selt- zert” *In & general way."” *‘Do you know that bromide of potassium is the active principle?” “1do notknow that.”” “Don’t you know that 1ts basic principle is bromide of gollllhlm, with a little seltzer in it to make iteffervescent?’ “I know it is made outof five ingredients.” “Have you studied it?" How do you come to know then?" “From conversations I have had about it.” “Do Knn not know from these conversations e that the active principlejs bromide ol potas- sium?” “I do not know that.” “Did you ever read about it?" “A litle." “What is bromide-seltzer made ot?"” “‘Caffein, acetamid, bromide of soas, tartaric *iDocs. the Matorta 2 “Does the Materia Medica give the maké-u; of proprietary medicines?” : L DEFENDASNT DURRANT WRITES AT THE DICTATION OF DIS- 1RICT ATTORNEY BARNES. [Sketched in the courtreom yesterday by a “Call™ artist.] “Yes, in the same condition?” “About the same,” he replied, cantiously. “Have you made no alterations in tyom?" “Nome.” rather ““And these are the notes taken by you in the lecture-room on the 3d of April?” “Parts of them were written in afterward?” “Put a rule around those parts, plcase?” Witness did as was requested and then ! the District Attorney asked: i “l‘y“ your notebook loose like this in April ast?" ust like it is now.” ‘‘Were the leaves loose 80 that you could take out some leaves and place in others?” “I couid have done that.'” “Why didn’t you have a bound book?"” Dickinson—I object to that. The court—It is overruled. m\vnnesu (answering)—Because this was han- er. “In what respect?” Dickinson—I object. The couri—The objoetion is overruled. Witness (answering)—It was handier to carry around, and when [ had a number of notes of a series I could take them out. bind them and put them in my desk, where they would be all together. - “Didn’t you have this cover so that you could take out pages and replace them with new ones.” “No, sir. “How long litve you had this cover?” “Since June ¢ year ago, I think."” ‘How often hiave you had it filled?” ‘Two or thice times.” ““Is it not & fact that you did not have a sin- g!elx:r:te oft %x. Cheney’s lecture on April 37" “1t {8 not. ““Is it nOt & fact that you took a copy of Gla- zler's notes 01 the 10th of April?” “I may * a¥e done so.” “In -order, to get some important points, as you said “I may have done so. " “On April 20 did not Dr.Graham visit you in comyany with Mr. Dunnigan?” “I beliere ,that was the professional gentle- man's name.’ “And did you ask Mr. Dunnigan to step to one side while you spoke privately to Dr. Gra- P “I don't know that I did.” “Well, did you “I might not have,” “But did you 7" “I'had no reason to.” The court—Well, answer the question, Mr, Durrant; you know whether you did or not. Witness—I asked him, with Dr.Graham, to excuse us. “Then what did you say to him " iYou mean in reference to this hook 2" Did you say anything to Mr. Dunnigan that led him to step to one side 7’ “In conjunction with Dr. Graham I did. We both asked him to excuse us.” “\What was it you said ?' “I acked him if he would mind stepping to one side while Dr. Graham and I spoke. ~Was this in_the booking office or at your cell in the City Prison 7"’ “At the cell.” #What did you do then ?” L stepped io one side—about two feet.” “What did Dunnigan do ?’ 1He stepped back s little.”” ‘‘Did Graham ask you if you had your notes of Dr. Cheney's lecture 2" Mr. Barnes had been firing in his ques- tions pretty quickly, one on top of the other. The witness did not like this. He is deliberate and deliberative above all things. At this point he aroused himself a bit and said, somewhat hastily: ‘If you ask thy aceably I can answer them.” 2 guslsioha e 3 ‘Mr. Barnes spoke mildly: *‘At that interview didn’t Dr. Graham say to z:g,l"x.oox herle, Dnmlat, YL AN h; a ba g; m £0) or you. ave ANy DO of Dr. cbgg§-r eotiure? '1f you haven't Tt bring mine. u'd better have them to com- pare, anyway.’ “He said nothing of the kind.” “Were Dr. Graham’s notes brought to you by your mother?” hey were not.” hey were not brought by your mother?"* bsolutely not.” Did you not receive «hem from some one who brought them to you?”’ “1did not.” “‘Did you not say to Dr. Graham then that if Lon could only secure full notes of Dr. Cheney's cture you could establish an alibt?” “‘Isaid I would look over the notes and com- “The 11th?” “I think so. “How about the 12th 2 ‘Until I was arrested.” ‘ou forgot it then ?” “Yes, si “Did you forget it on the 15th?" “Yes, sir. “On the 16th?” “Yes, sir. “The 17th?” “I didn't pay ahy attention to it—I think T remembered it on the 17th.” “When?" “In the sfternoon.” “What time?” “When Mr. Deuprey called.” “What time was that?” tinBetween 2 and 4 o'clock—probably that ime.” ‘What time on the 14th did 3. “At the time I was arrested, 1 say. “Didn’t you state to Dr. Graham thatyou did not know whether you had notes?” “I aidn't know if they were full.” *Didn’t you know you had written in some notes on ‘the 10t of April from Glazier's note: ou forget 1t?" , sir.” “You had gone over the lecture of the 3d on the 10th to see if you had left out anything?"’ *‘Practically that.” “‘You knew the 3d was the day that Blanche Lamont disappeared ?” I think so—I am not certain.” “Didn’t ;\ 1 know it from your conversation with Mrs. Noble?” “Well, yes.” “It was well known to you by reportand from resflg( 1t in the papers?” “Yes, sir.” “And you had gone over your notes on the 10th “Yes, sir.” “And vet on the 14th you didn't knmow u had notes—and you knew that your name was connected with Blanche La- monl’s disappearance?”’ nly as to seeing her on the morning."” nd this recollection about the notes came back to you on the 17th?" es, gir; that is right.” on knew how important it was to you in establishin; bi?" fl“l didn’t know what an alibi meant at that me."! “Do you know now?’ “Yes, sir.” ‘Did you know what 1t was by any other name—a man proving himself in one place when he is accused of being in enother place?” ‘No, sir.” ”’i“’ ylo“ receive a copy of Glazier's notes?’’ “‘No, sir.” “Was not a copy handed to you?" “No, sir.” Were they handed to any one else for your use X “No, sir.” “Were they sent to your lawyers 7" “Not to my knowledge." ““Which ferry-house did you go to on the afternoon of the 12th of April when you were searching for Blanche Lamont 2 ‘“At what time 7" ‘‘At any time, or all the time when you were there,” sald Mr. Barnes. Dickinson—We object to that. It has alrcady been gone over. . The court—The objection is overruled. Witness (unlwer!ng)—l walked back an forth from one ferry-house to the other, watch- ing the boats come in. “Your information was that out. not coming in—was it not ? 'Well, I couldn’t stand there without seeing those who came in.” Did you wateh the people coming in ?* 1 suppose 1 did."” “Don’t you know for a fact that you were there to h the arrivals, and not the de- partures “¥do not know that.” “And during this time was your heart stfll fllled" With this same glad spirit of happi- ness 2" “Well, it graduslly died out.” e 11 nnk, did 1t 7" “It did.’ “3ut you were very glad and hup% ‘when the m-nng'::r tapped you on the shoulder and gave you the clew?” “Yes, sir.” ‘‘How did you manifest your happiness; by yelling or throwing your hat in the air?” e was going iltum offered in evidence. Dickinson—I object. The court—Well, now, Mr. you may ask him what he did. “How many Sausalito boats did you see com- ing in?"’ I can’t say.” : 8 “Did you stop at the Tiburon ferry?” o I have no recollection on that point.” c{’)iltrict Attorney, ow long did you stop there?” ““Well, I made ii my business to get there just before each boat started.” “What did you do in the meantime?” i “I walked about; once I talked to a peddler.' “Was he a licensed peddler?” *I think he was.” “Do you know his name?” “I do not.” 2 “Did you inform him why you were there?” “I did not.” “How many boats came in from Oakland and Alameda while you were there?”’ ““About four.” “Did you see four go out?’ “I couldn’t say.” “What time did you reach Cooper Me_dh.;ll College on the morning of the 4th of April?” Dickinson—I object i that. My questions were confined to the time between 10 and 11 o'clock on that day. The court—The objection is overruled. Witness (answering)—In the neighborhood of 8 o'clock. $ “How do you fix the time now?” “By my lécture card.” “Have you any independent lecture?” “I can't keep in mind all the lectures.” “What was the first lecture you attended on April 87 “‘What day was that?'’ asked witness. “Monday.” Dickinson—Same objection. The court—Same ruling. Witness (answering)—About 9:30 o’clock. “When was the last lecture youattended that bout half past 1.” “What was the subject of the first lecture?” “It wasa clinic.’’ “Was there a rollcall?” “No rollcall at sll.” 1s there never a rollcall?” Simply a silent one.” What is that?” “We march eround the room and are marked as we pass the desk.” “Were you marked present at the second lecture?”’ “I don’t know; I was not present.” “You asked Potter to answer for you when the roll was called?” “Yes, sir.” ““Then you were marked present?’’ “Yes, sir—for the moment.” “Till'when?” “Till T was called upon to be quizzed.” . “If you had not been called upon for quiz- zing, then, your name would have remained on the roll as present?” “I suppose it would.” “Where were you, instead of being at the lecture?"” “On my way home.” After some further questions concerning Durrant’s errand to a coalyard and to the bank that day Mr. Barnes led the witness back to April 3 again. “Who lectured just before Dr. Cheney?” he asked. “D “pf «I did not. Fliat was it about?” ew remedies.” “Why didn’t you attend?” “I told you I didn’t care for ‘New Reme- dies.’” : “Isn’t bromo-seltzer a new remedy?” “Decidedly an old one.” “Don’t you know that you attended all of Dr. Hanscn's lectures in March, and until this one of the 3d of April?” I don’t know as I did.” Hansen.” ou attend his lecture?” hatar vou know that you did not?”’ “No, sir.” \'(t{udwok notes of Dr. Hansen's lectures?” 1 did.” “Are they in your book?” “They may be.” Mr. Barnes handed witness his note- book, and the next few minutes was spent in Durrant’s marking off the notes in it of Dr. Hansen’s lecture. After he had done this Mr. Barnes handed him a slip of paper—the wrapper that came around the newspaper in which were inclosea Blanche Lamont’s rings to Mrs. Noble. “Did you write that address on the wrap- per?” asked the Distsict Attorney. Dickinson—I object. Barnes—This is the wrapper— The court—Well, how do you claim that is cross-examination. The door was not opened for that on the main examination. Dickinson—I withdraw the objection. Witness (answering)—No, sir. “That is not in your hanawriting?” “1t is not.” “You had nothing to do with it at all?” “No, sir.” Mr. Barnes was permitted, after some argument, to present merely as examples of Durrant’s handwriting the records of the Chrisnan Endeavor gociely kept by Durrant and such portions of the library catalogue as were admitted to be in Dur- rant’s handwriting. Some of the printed words on the cata- logue were, Durrant testified, the work of George R. King, the organist. When all the books were finally placed in evidence, court adjourned for the noon recess. e THE AFTERNOON SESSION. Mr. Barnes’ Sensational Questions About Durrant Seelng the Body In the Belfry. ‘When court opened in the afternoon Dickinson had a question or two to ask in regard to the catalogue of the library. He placed it in Durrant’s hands and asked: “Iask you to examine this book—people’s exhibit No. 56. When did you see it prior to to-day “I saw it on April 3. “Do you observe anything peculiar about it now?”’ “I do.” “What is it?” ““The absence of half of oneof the pages on which some writing occurred.” Do you know why it is missing?” “Ido not.” “Your Honor,” said Dickinson, “I ask leave to withdraw my consent to the admission of this book in evidence until this half-page has been accounted for. It is not in its original condttion.” ‘It seems to me,” answered the court, “that the book could go in as an evidence of the de- fendant's handwriting, even If there were by one line remaining in it. They cannot cross- examine upon it, but it is good as evidence of handwriting.” e Dickinson—I object to it in its present form. The court—The objection is overruled. “Can you identify this book to the best of your recollection?” then asked Barnes. “Yes, sir.”” “Can you téll if what has been traced here on this card will fill out that page in the book to the best of your recollection?” “I cannot iell. Irecollect such a subject in the book, but I cannot tell whether or not this belongs there.” “Who entered anything in the catalogue be- sides yourself?"" “To'the best of my knowledge, George King. He was the only one who had access to it and could write. But there was another book—'’ “‘1 am speaking of this particular book. Itis but fair to_the defendani,” continued Barnes, “for the prosecution to admit that before the book came into the possession of the State it was mutilated in that mauner, and that the mutilation of the book, I am advised and be- lieve, was not the work of the defendant, but it was done by & newspaper man for the Chroni- ¢cle to make tracings of it for a reproduction. We cannot get the original back from the art- room of the Chronicle.” We can prove the page to have been cut out in the manner and for the purpose mentioned, but this tracing is the only evidence of what was cut out. [ will offer it in evidence, but I will withdraw it if there is any objection, for I know it is incompetent.” Dickinson—We will consent to the admission of (ge book on that statement, but without the card. Barnes—The card then being objected to I will ask to have the clerk mark it for identi- fication. The court—Very well. Then Barnes took a bundle of letters, bills, notebooks, etc., and one by one he showed them to the witness. As each was put into his hand be was asked if it was 1n his handwriting, and then each was 1n On occasions where the documents were not entirely in his handwriting, the witness marked just what was his. They were all offered, not for the sub- stance of them, but as specimens of Dur- rant's handwriting. Dickinson objected to each as not relevant, but the court over- ruled each objection, and admitted the documents as specimens of the defendant’s bandwriting, and for that purpose only. There was a letter inclosed in anenvelope, Durrantadmitted having written the letter, but not the address on the envelope, as he said that some one else had done that for him. A number of photographs of Dur- rant’s handwriting were also admitted by consent, among them being a photograph of the names on the wrapper in which tge | rings were sent to Mrs. Noble. The original l_nnmes were partly blurred. The wrapper itself was shown t0 Durrant. He did not claim the handwriting, but it was sub. mitted nevertheless. Then the cross. questions were resumed. “On Agfll 8 did you go to the coalyard first to the bank first?” or‘"l?nllm coalyard. 1 might say here that I d1dn’t order the coal that time. I went there Aiff t purpose.” ‘“f.',‘),“' ;;fx" "2t siate this morning that you ordered the coal on that occasion?” “If I did I had in mind Friday. Why did you go on April 87 B To see the proprietor about insurance. “What time did you leave the bank? +As soon as I received my bankbook, near 12 5 f‘\\ hat did you do after that?” “I went do\vntown.”’ “Where did you go?” Dickinson objected to the question, but was overruled. * +‘To the ferries,” answered the w “Were you aware on April 8, 1895 nie Williams resided in Alameda?’ % Dickinson—I object on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant .‘ms immaterial, and ot proper cross-examination. Thll (‘c‘:urt——l do not remember counsel for the defense asking anything about what bap- nea on April 8 except what the dvufclldnnl id between the hoursof 8 and 12 o'clock on that day. Imay be mistaken, but that is my recollection. Barnes—Your Honor is correct in regard to the testimony. E The court—What is the object of this ques- tion? Mr. Barnes—The object is firs}—the_de— fendant testified as to what he did between certain hours on that day, and I have a right to extend the examination to test the recol- lection of the witness of what happened on that day. Another object af the question is to show, if T can, that as a matter of fact the purpose for which the defendant stated upon the stand he was at the ferry was in fact not the true purpose, but that he was there for an- other and different purpt It is introductory tolead up to and throw some light upon the jury as to what he was there for. Dickinson—I was very careful to confine my questions to the doings of the defendant after April 3 to certain hours. If the code allows the prosecution to extend its examination over other hours, I see no reason why it cannot e tend it over any hour of any day it sees fit. The prosecution ¢cannot call this defendant as its own witness and I do not see how it can ex- tend the examination. The cross-examination has extended the limits of its questions con= siderably. We are entitled to have them con- fined 10 the times which the questions on the direct examinationindicate and the time those questions covered. The court—There is no rule that I know of which confines the cross-examination to sus- tain questions snd answers and certain times, provided it does not wander from the subject- matter of the direct examination; wheneyer the subject-matter is opened by the defense the prosecution can go into it fuily. Dickinson—I asked, “What did you do be- tween the hours of 10 and 11?” and the cross- examination cannot go beyond those hours. The court—I have seriousdoubts whether the defense can shut off by its questions the ques- tions of the cross-examination, but the District Attorney has gone out of the direct line of the subject-matter, and I therefore think the ob- jection well taken,as it is not proper cross- examination. “On which corner of Post and Dupont did you meet the stranger?” “On the west side, as I was about to cross Dupont on the north side of Post.” +Opposite the Bohemian Club?"” don’t know where that is.” ou know where Sutter street is?"’ block above Post.”” “Where is Bush street?” “Two blocks above Post.” ness. , that Min “What time was 4t when you met this un- known man?”’ ‘‘Probably after 4 o’clock.” “Do you know of your ow’ Oppenheim's pawnshop is?” “Only from having it pointed out to me as I was riding down from the jail.”’ Jo you know that itis on the west side of Dupont stree! “Yes, sir.” “A\\_nd between Bush and Pine?” knowledge where s, si ; Was it on the west side of Dupont you met stranger?” . Durrant, do I understand it as your finality that you never, at any time, dressed an envelope to your attorneys marked *To be opened if | am convicted and to be re- turned to me if I am not convicted ?" Dickinson—We obj That has already been gone into. Besides if there were such an envelope it would be in the nature of & privi- leged communication. The couri—The contents of might be privileged, but hardly the envelope, But I understand the District Attorney offers to follow up this with testimony. If such is the case I will admit it, with the urderstanding that it is merely introductory. Barnes—So far as 1 am concerned the ques- tion is merely introductory. The court—The objection the understanding, ot cours the envelope overruled, with , that the answer is 10 be stricken out if the subject is not fol- lowed up properly. Witness (answering)—I addressed no such en- velope. *“Did you not, as a matter of fact, have a small enivelope, so addressed, in your posses- sion in the County Jail on September 227 “I did not.”” ““And on the 23d of September did you .not transfer the contents of the small enveiope to alarge one, which contained a statement of your doings on April 3, and did you not show Euch large ana such small envelope, on each of the days mentioned, between the b of 7 ». M. and midxight, to Miss Cunningham?” “1did not.” “'Did you show any or either of those en- velopes to any other person.” “No, sir; 1did not.” “Did you on the 5th of October, in cell 29 ot the County Jail, in conversation with Miss Cunninghfm, say that when you were at work fixing the sunburners you heard a moise and foliowed it up to the belfry aud there saw the dead body of Blanche Lamont on the sec- ond landing, and did you say that she was murdered in the second landing of the belfry “There was a story brought to me by Miss Cunningham which, like the sweet pea girl story, purnorted to be a rumor_which she had heard about town, to the effect that I had heard a noise while fixing the gas, and that I had followed the noise to the landing above to see what it was, and discovered what you make reference to. Ineither affirmed nor denied it, as I have done with every reporter who has hmughluu(or{ towe. I asked her if she in- tended to publish this, and I told her she Would put me to great annoyance ii she did. She said she would say nothing about it what- ever, and she stood on a box and said she would solemnly promise me she would say nothing about ‘it until it could be proved. Now, I ask for the proof to come forward.” “I8 that al]?” “That is all.”” “Did she not ask you if you were sure it was the second landing, and say that landing was not in sight from where you were,and then that 1t was the second landing, as that was where the blood fell on to the cloth-covered picture; and did you not say that there was no 1ood at all; that what seemed to be blood had been analyzed and found to be oniy water?” *‘She framed her story in something of that . Targued the points with her that one could not see any onein the belfry from th — 2 5 Cts. Per Can. Colima Baking Powder, Colima Pure Spices. As inducement to test COLIMA'S SU- PERIORITY, Valuable Presents given FREE with each can. 100 varieties to choose from. We mentiona few : 1 Glass Butter Dish, 1 Glass Sugar Bowl, 6 Preserve Dishes, 1 Decorated Thin China Cup and Saucer, 1 decorated Salad vish, 1 Cup and Saucer (assorted decorations), 1 Thin China Oatmeal Bowl, 1 Cream Pitcher, Gold Decorated Cup, Saucer and Plate, Dec- orated set of 3 Water Goblets, Syrup Pitcher, Vegetable Dish, 1 Glass Berry Dish, 1 Majolica Pitcher, 1 Covered Saucepan, 1 Coftee Pot (2 qt.), Oatmeal Set of 3 pleces, set of 3 Table Tumblers, 1 Dish Kettle (8 ats). Lots 0f-0thers at our stores. Great Ameriqan Tmporting Tea Co.” 617 Kearny street, 146 Ninth street, 965 Market street, 140 Sixth street, 1419 Polk street, 521 Montgomery avenue, 333 Hayes stroet. 218 Third street, 2008 Fillmore street, 3006 Sixteenth strect, 104 Second street, 2510 Mission street, 52 Market street, 18259 Mission street. 10533 Washi Oakland J o1 gru::lv{:nl)‘rf“n Mxehts an Pablo a STORES (616 E: Tweifeh sonue? Alameda . .. {Park strect and Alameda Visit our Stores. See the Big Display, Compare Prices and Quality is all We San Franeiseo STORES