The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, October 25, 1895, Page 8

\ 8 THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1895. THE STATE DEMANDS THE LIFE OF DURRANT OPENING SPEECH OF Assm-j ANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY PEIXOTTO. THE DURRANT CA OTTO'S SF 1ot Theodore T pearances. | lay the State’s opening argument to | was made by t ic dwara D. Peixo 1 begin the argument for the de- pected that he will close by the ‘ rnment. | llection day, there will prob- | 0 session of court, as there are swho have private business of im- | v is physically able to losing argument for ill follow for the leit the court’s in- the defense. people—then th st s to the jury and Mr. Peixottomade an able address yesterday, g close to the [actsof the case asad- duced 1n evidence and concluding before the usuel hour of the evening adjournment had been quite reached. gy VERY NEAR THE END. The First Argument in the Famous Trial-Durrant Was Inter- ested. All day a young man in broadcloth frock coat stood in front of along green-covered All day he talked — sometimes ometimes poetically, oiten ely, alway: In front of him, on the o able, were twelve men, seated. All y they listened, attentively The room was densely crowded. Judges, | lawyers, public men, the wives of these, society men and women, and as many of | the unknown public as could be squeezed | into the room elbowed and crowded one | another all day. Merely to hear the voice | of this young man in broadcioth? Hardly that. There is another figure that shares al- vays the interest of the crowds that seek the courtroom. A silent, calm, impassive | figure his is. It does not speak, save in an | sional whisper to Mr. Dickinson—the | little, nervous woman who sits behind. No | matter who has the floor or the witnes: chair; no matter how eioquent the words of the counsel or how sensational the tes- timony of the witness, this silent figure, never nervous, always cool, 1s yet the cen- tral figure. Yesterday a lady who came to the court for the first time asked her escort to point | out Durrant. Jokingly he pointed to one | of the men at the reporters’ table. | What a horrible face he has!” said the | fair one, and she was looking, too, at one | of the best-natured men on the afternoon | press. | But she thought—for the moment—that it was Durrant. Imagination did the rest. | And her remark would have been no | nearer the mark had she in truth been | looking into the face of Durrant. Hisis | not a pleasant face. Itwas not pleasant yesterday while he listened to the words | of the young man who did the talking. But there was no horror on the face. Once or twice the mouth opened slowly | and the eyes closed ina sleepy yawn. This was while the young man who did the talking—Assistant District Attorney Ed- | ward D. Peixotto—was paying his compli- ments to the court and jury. Afterawhile Peixotto got down to the evidence in the case. Then Durrant turned toward the speaker and listened attentively, but not | eagerly. He took notesoccasionally. Once i or twice he looked with a trifle more than the ordinary interest at the speaker, when the latter made a telling point against | him. There was some poetry in Mr. Peixotto’s speech—quite a little of introductory com- pliments—but in all it was a telling speech and a good argument. It was not too long and it was not too flowery. But iew lawyers talk careful English to a jury, and Mr. Peixotto proved not an exception to the rule. He was preceded by Miss Cunningham, who came back on the stand when court opened in the morning to say that she had not promised Durrant not to tell the story about the second landing of the belfry. He did not require such a promise, as he did not foresece such a contingency. He made her promise not to publish it, and she kept this promise faithfully. 3 “That is all,” said Mr. Barnes. “No cross-examination,” said Mr. Dick- inson. “The State rests,” said Mr. Barnes. “We have nothing further,” said Mr. Dickinson. “‘Proceed with the argument,. gentle- men,” said the court. Tben it was that the young man with the broadcloth frock coat began his talk. And when he had ended it, late in the afternoon, Mr. Dickinson presented an affidavit from his colleague, Mr. Deuprey. The affidavit set forth that affiant had reason to believe that he would be re- covered sufficiently from his 1llness to be in court Monday morning and make the opening argument for the defense. This was accompanied by a similar affidavit from Mr. Deuprey’s physician. TUpon these documents Mr. Dickinson based a motion for adjournment till Mon- day, so that Mr. Deuprey might e heard before the former should make the closing argument for the defense. The court was uncertain whether to grant this request or not, and the matter was left for the jury to decide. They de- | sired to proceed in the morning, and at the same time asked for an adjournment over | we as representa | the of all reasonable donbt, and ot moral cer- | tainty. Wek v thi At the inception of this cause you were asked especially | upon the quesgion as to wh | thing tha | man beings is accompanied by a vague or | 1aw and we could never prove crimes which | right at our case. Monday because that is ‘collection day. And this will be the order of the proceed- ings. When court opens this mornin, Dickinson will address the court o! of the defendant, } < S o T THE FIRST ARGUMENT. Mr. Peixotto’s Picture of the Fiend- ish Crime In the EBelfry of Mr, half Emmanuel Church. Assistant District Attorney Edward D. snow you that his conduct and life from that moment were different and unusual. He had never before met Blanche La- mont. He had never before gone to school over that route on the Mission-street line. He had never before gone to school with her in the morning, but on this fatal day all these things happened. He escorted her to the school tuat morning. We prove this by two witnesses, a conductor and a Peixotto began his argument to the jury ell-chosen remarks concerning the it importance of the case at issue, of | student. bis own connection with the famous trial Where is the proof that and his prese ; 3r. Deuprey promised? “This testimony is not denied but ad- ith fear and mis- ‘e unable to | mitted by the defendant. If it is possible cope with it: for 1 recognize that [ am a | to prove that this defendant taking ; 1 and anexperienc Miss Lamont to school in the morning; it h faltering voice under s {rusted to m of twelve good men and i ise ion of outside of thi sions—where he was and what he was doing with this girl in_the morning—why | is it that we cannot also prove his where. abouts in the afternoon? Why is it that every witness that has testified to the | doing of this man in the afternoon isa fool—a driveling idiot, or an old and blind individual? If we could prove it in | the morning, why cannot we prove it in | ties You have been taken from your hor your firesides and your oceu prreciate the importance you thoroug! o d preciate the dut; the time when not want the cted. “WWe, as counsel for the State, recognize that thisisa great and important cause. We recognize that we have a divided duty, 3 State and to this defendant. State never does and never will ask he conviction of innocent man. Ours cause which must be won at all It is not one that we must go into dless of all consequences. N d for one moment dant, Theodore D ives of the 8 how it. 1f he is guilt the representatives of the State, demand the right to see that he is punished. We ask you to keep this matter plainly before you. Ve want from you a determination and a solution of the problem that shall be submitted to you. 1 say itin no spirit of flattery that never in our commonwealth s there been impaneled a more intelli- gent and attentive jury than this. Neither side exhansted the challenges allowed by law, and so we started with confidence in the men who would try the cause. That confidence bas not, I am sure, been shaken. Public opinion stops short ab the doors of justice. “Whatever may be the public opinion, its waves may roll and roar, but when they reach the temple of justice there they stop, and in the caim and dignity of the law such as we have witnessed, no matter how hideo he crime and no matter how bad the individ who committed it, he is entitled to a fair and impartial trial. “We charge that Theodore Durrant killed Blanche nont on or abonut the 3d of April, 1895. This fact must be estab- lished to the satisfaction of the State, free tisa reasona- You were told it did not mean able or possible doubt; for any- 1s the work of a human being, that is the product of the testimony of hu- ble doubt. possible doubt. 1f we had to prove beyond all possible doubta cause murder would always go unpunished, as circumstantial evidence would be eliminated from the in many instances are fearful and hideous because there is no direct evidence of i o e told you the case rested lurgely on | the aiternoon? Because that would be to circumstantial evidence, though this can- | admit his guilt. But I say we did prove it not be called a case of pure circumstantial | in the morning. We did prove it in the evidence. We have a large amount of di- | afternoon. rect evidence upon one of the vital ques- “He left Blanche Lamont at her school. ons and that must be determined; that | He tells yon he went to college. He tells as to the identity of the body,asto|you he took a walk, and the counsel for hether or not it was Blanche Lamont, | the defense sa he will show you with and whether or not she is dead.” whom he took the walk and how he took Now the State answers Mr. the walk. Where is that proof? Where Deuprey’s opening questions. indeed? Bt Ch Here the Assistant District Attorney | 328Ylng Simply he does rot remember the cited the case of the Parkman.Webster | date. Carter “““"?E%‘U"m"?i’“‘e him, say- murder. Then, continuing, he said: ‘“We | P& some time early in April. are now prepared to answer the_questions, Why did not Durrant attend Where was she murdered? When was Professor Hanson’s lecture 1? By whom was she “‘Gentlemen, there is one very peculiar murdered? What was the motive?| thing which you must have noticed about We answer the question, Where was| many of the students at this time. They she murdered? In" the "belfry of Em-| havea very peculiar memory. They can manuel Baptist Church. When was she | not remember anythi The secret, gen- murdered? On the afternoon of the 3d of | tlemen of the jury, that they would April, between the hours of 4:2 5| not perjure themselves by swearingtoa o’clock. By whom was she murdered ? By | falsehood to save this defendant, but their this defendant, Theodore Durrant. What | class pride did not let them tax their as the motive? Unbridled passion—that | memory to such an extent that they could same motive that s filled our histery | tell the whole truth. Thev simply say with so many black pages. ‘we know nothing.’ t Now, gentlemen of the jury, we will go | biank. Their testimony is negative. ‘We will take up the “But we have this fact from the de- eviaence piecemeal; that evidence that|fendant, that he took that walk, that he bas come from all sides, from all classes | was not at Hanson’s lecture. He had been of people; so different, so diversed, old | at every one of them during that entire and young, girls and boys, men and | term, during all the month of March, but women, rich and poor—all have supplied | he was not at Hanson's lecture on the 3d. evidence that fits together and coils the | He was absent. . rope around this defendant so tight that “Where was he? He says he was up in he is beyond recall. the library talking with a student, not “And if in the statement of this evi- | about the lecture, but prescribing for the dence I go one jot beyond the fact, one | catarrh. We have a witness who tells you misstatement, no matter how slight, I ask | in plain terms where he w. Mrs. Vogel. vou, I beseech you, learned counsel for the | You saw her. You are to judge whether defendant, to stop me where 1 am, for | she is laboring under a delusion; vou can knowingly and intentionaily I would not | judge of her character, a plain German state one thing against this man further ]‘ady. than what has already been stated in your presence that would barm him one jot be- vond the awful position in which we find | him now. Durrant shows the merve re- quired to handle dead bodics. “Blanche Lamont was a voung girl of abour twenty years of age, born in Mon- tana, reared in the country. She came out here a vear or two aeo to reside with her aunt, Mrs. Noble. Let us take Dur- rant’s own description of the girl. He said: ‘She was so pure, so good, so inno- cent that she thought all others were like her, and whoever she had confidence in could lead her wherever they would.’ This is the defendant’s statement of her charac- ter to her friends after she was missing. He only too well knew what her confi- dence was and how she might be led. ‘“I'he other character in this awful trag- edy is a young man about 24 years of age, a handy man about the church, a medical student, one Who is just in the first step of that profession which takes nerve, the kind of nerve that leads up to a crime of | this character; that profession in which so many have stopped in the first year ot their studies because they did not have nerve enough and stamina enough to go through with handling dead bodies and dissecting them as is required. You have seen this young man in court, you have observed him on the stand, you have seen his coolness, his calmness and his cun- ning. That character, and a medical stu- dent bandling dead bodies, I wish you would keep before your eyes, for we need these facts later on. The characier of Miss Lamont—trusting and confiding—I wish you also to keep in your mind, for we need that later on. ““This defendant has proved a good char- acter for himself. I admit right here that in a criminal defense this isone of the strongest safeguards against accusation, Blanche could have been led. only by a man of good reputation, ““We know as prosecuting officers that in the ordinary cases of murder, of embezzle- ment, of forgery, that good character is one of the hardest thinegs to contend against before a jury. But in this case we wanted the defendant to prove a good character. He has proved it. It is only with a man of good character that Blanche Lamont would have ever gone to a lonely spot. If he had been & man of bad char- acter—if Blanche Lamont had for one moment suspected that he was not what the world believed him she never would have gone one step out of the sight of any other human beings. Thatiswhy I say to you, This defendant’s good character helps to place him, as we shall show you, as the murderer of this girl. “On the 3d of April Blanche Lamont started as usual for her school. She was attending the higher branches. The same morning this defendant started for his college. But when we take him ot of his bed and see him leaving his house, we will she murdered? Mrs. Vogel saw the defendant waiting for Blanche Lamont. ““She attended to her daily affairs. She had a large sum of money in the house be- longing to a friend. There had been a burglar in the neighborhood, which nat- urally made the neighbors suspicious. Mrs. Vogel, looking out of the window, saw this man, the defendant. She looked again and the same man was there, and yet again and he was passing up and down, walking to and fro, looking up at the buildings, pacing and waitine as he was for his victim, as the vulture flies back- ward and forward waiting for his prey. He was there about 2 o’clock. He was not at Hanson’s fecture. Mrs. Vogel says he was in front of the school. She watched him well. She saw him there and ob- served him through her opera-glasses. The next thing she remembers is that she saw and recognized his face in the paper. They say Mrs. Vogel made a mistake about the clothing this defendant had on.” Here Mr. Peixotto spoke about the memory of faces and the identification of clothing, saying that it .is difficult to de- scribe minutely a person’s clothing. Mrs, Vogel's testimony read, “He was dressed in a dark suit, a cutaway, and had on a soft hat and lighter pants.” The pants were not black. 1 know that for sure.” Mr, Peixotto exhibited Durrant’s clothing to the jury. Blanche came out of the school with Minnie Belle Edwards. “I am not contending that these are light pants; neither did Mrs. Vogel. She said that they were lighter. Put those trousers in the light and I will ask you to judge whether they are not lighter than the coat. Mrs. Vogel's testimony did not stand alone. You may think it strange that Mrs. Vogel was looking out of the window. She told you how it was thatshe started to look at him and why she used her opera-glasses. What this man was waiting for haypened. School let out. The young girls from theit classes came down the stairs. Mrs. Vogel said she saw two girls come down the stairway nearest to Clay street. Minnie Belle Edwards came down with Blanche Lamont. All the girls knew Blanche Lamont. They took particular notice of her because she was a new pupil at the school. “They walked down the street together. Mrs. Vogel saw this man, Theodore Dur- rant, run up to them; this man, who should have been at Hanson’s lecture and was not there. This man, who was on Powell street: seen there by Mrs. Vogel and Mrs. Edwards. What directed these girls’ attention to him? It is not custom- ary for young men to meet girls after school, and when they do, and_this being a new p\\pi].hfltflml{ the girls looked, and as ‘the saying is ‘sized up’ the young man. ¢ Mrs. Vogel saw Durrant and Blanche get on the car. *They saw him get on the car, Mrs. Ross fails to corroborate him, | Their testimony is aJ T | Vogel saw them get on the car. She did not know that it was Blanche Lamont. She says it was one of the girls coming out | of the school. You have two persons’ tes- | timony, uncontradicted, unimpeached, to the effect that Theodore Durrant got upon the car after school with Blanche La- i mont. Blanche Lamont started with Theodore Durrant upon that journey from | whose bourne no traveler returns. This | defendant started on his road to the mur- | derer’s cell and to the gallows. | . “That is not negative testimony. That | is testimony of fact uncontradicted, cor- | roborated, unimpeached. The car con- tinued on'to the turntable. Minnie Belle | Edwards was still in the car. She saw | way and they went about theirs. Before this defendant was ever arrested, before | even he was suspected sufficiently to cause any investigation against_him, these girls told that story. When Blanche Lamont | was missing and tbis defendant was help- ling in the search and finding clews from | people on the strect, those girls said that | Blanche Lamont left school and met a | | young man, and if they should see that | young man they would recognize him. | and when they did see his pictureand they | did see him they did recognize it and him, and their recognition is bound by oath.” . Mrs. Crossett saw them riding in the V | After giving a description of Durrant’s | movements when he got on_the Valencia- | street car, Mr. Peixotto interpolated a man. If she was not honest, why did not | Mrs. Leak say directly, ‘I saw Blanche La- | mont? But you see, gentlemen of the ury, she is telling you only what she saw. was not Lucille Turner, because she did not, after a certain time, go with Theodore | Durrant any more. Blanche Lamont had | not heard of the character of Theodore | Durrant, and she never for one moment 4 suspected that when she entered that gate and went'into that church she was indeed entering the portals of heaven. As to | what happened in there, gentlemen of the | jury, the testimony is blank. Thatis why | we asked you if you would convict on cir- | cumstantial evidence. The story is told |and we will tell it to you. In there this { it 1s possible to prove this by third par- | Blanche Lamont and Theodore Durrant | cunning man went with that innocent defendant’s admis- | Were on the car still. She went about her | young girl, and what man can do with woman you undoubtedly know.” 2 Mz Peixotto recited some verses begin- ning, “The devil stood at the gate of ell.” Then, with dramatic effect, he said, “The devil and the angel went into the house of God !” A graphic picture of the awful crime in the belfry. l “Into the belfry they went. What was the consequence?” His hands clasped her throat. The girl gasped her last. Before | it can be told in words her life breath had | departed and Theodore Durrant had be- | come a murderer. No sooner does the | mind act than it starts to conceal this crime. The body is stretched out, not as | some one who was not accustomed to the handling of the dead, but lying there on | the floor with her arms crossed. There, & 11 EDGAR D. “The devil and the angel went [Sketched by a “Call” artist.] PEIXOTTO ADDRESSES THE JURY. into the house of God together.” description of Addison’s vision of Mirza, | wherein the philosopher museson life. 11é | described the bridge seen in the vision, | with the people dropping through holes | into the river, as described by the author. This led up to the testimony of Mrs. Cros- sett, an ol | of considerable importance. ‘‘Mrs. Crossett had reached nearly to the end of the bridge of time,” said Mr. Peix- otto. “She came from her home to this court knowing well the responsibility that rested on her. Do you think it possible that if she had a slight or vague, let alone a reasonable doubt, that she would have put it upon her last years to take a false oath? You cannot believe that. She had known this young man, he even mixing with her own family. It isa fact that she did see_him on the car; that it was Theo- dore Dutrant and a young girl whom she describes as arrayed in tl ejgnrments such | as Blanche Lamont wore. hey got off at Twenty-first street because Blanche La- mont lived there. Theodore Durrant had gone to that school to take her home. They started to walk down Twenty-first street. You could easily imagine this man’s suggestion, ‘Let us go up to the church a moment.’ Martin Quinlan saw them walking toward the church. ‘“This man of good character, to this girl who was so good, so_innocent and so pure that she conld be led anywhere by those in whom she had confidence. And so when they went down Twenty-first street they went up Bartlett streét and another per- son saw them. Martin Quinian. Itistrue heis a Police Court practitioner, but it is very odd that he has been here in San Francisco for ten years, has been residing in the neighborhood of that church, has been practicing in this City and owns property and the house he lives in—it is strange, I say, that the defense should be driven to get some people from Santa Rosa to swear that his character was bad some | ten years ago, and not a solitary soul has said one word against him 1 San Fran- cisco for ten years. They goto Sonoma County to get some opposing lawyers to say that they did not think he wasall right ten years ago. “Quinlan saw this man and also saw Blanche Lamont. Now, as to Mrs. Leak. She was nearsighted. Some of her friends | would come forward and tell you that Mrs, | Leak could not recognize anybod{. Where {is that testimony? It has not been pro- duced, becanse it is not a tact. Mrs. Leak | knows what she is talking about, Her daughter was rather late that afternoon and did not come home on time. While looking out of the window she sawacouple coming along, Mrs. Leak saw Blanche and Durrant enter the church. _““The man was Theodore Durrant. The girl was either Lucille Turner or Blanche Lamont.' 8he could not tell which, be- cause the girl’s face was turned toward the lady whose testimony has been | | unclothed, unhonored and unsung, un- | wept, unknelled, with no dirge but the | whistle of the wind throuzh the eaves of | the beliry, he left her for time to wither | ana age to decay. | “Did he for one moment think that there was a hole deep enough or a tower high enough in this little world of ours to hide that crime, that dead body of an in- | nocent girl? He stripped her of every- | thing, even her jewels, the rings on her fingers. You can see the whole story written as plain as I do. There were her %Joves, her books—everything just as Mrs. ogel saw her come out of school. Just as Miss Edwards and Miss Lannigan saw her on the car. Just as Mrs. Crossett and Mr. Quinlan and Mrs. Leak saw her go in. All the garments even were in the church, and were afterward placed in this court, crying out, ‘Guilty! 1t was you, and you alone!” “No human eye saw, no human ear heard.” “In what spot in that belfry did the girl breathe her last? I caunnot tell you. I could only theorize with you. e only know that she was murdered about that hour. That it was Blanche Lamont who was murdered cannot be doubted. No human eye saw, no human ear heard, save that of the dying girl and this man who has covered himself with falsehoods in endeavoring to extricate himself. When he was there in that beliry, that he conld have gone back and finished up the thing I have no need to tell you. But here he comes down trom the belfry and the de- fense makes this point—that 1f he haa been up in the beliry he could have walked out into the street and met nobody. *“That at first looks plausibie, but you must not mistake the man you have. "He is no longer at that time aman. Heisa murderer. Every nook and corner had an eye to his imagination. He was looking always for somebody who had seen him. He wanted not the light of day, but the darkness of night; yea, Egyptian darkness was not enough for him. “He went down by the way of the murderer.” “‘Supposing he came out of that d. and ran into Sademan! In his pale cg:f dition supposing he should meet some- body. The murderer’s mind takes no such chances. He went down by the way of the murderer, down by the way of dark- ness. You, every one of you, went there, and saw that dark place between the ceil- ing, and you know how you ciimbea through that opening. You walked across the ceiling to the back of the church down to the back stairs. Itisdark and you can sneak down, and that is what the murderer wants to do, to sneak out. He came into that room and there met with another point which 1 am ready to answer. How would a man with his hands dripping with blood walk in where George ing was playing the piano? Is thereany of our in- voluntary senses that we have more con- i trol of than hearing? This man was com- ing down from the beliry and coming down for the first time as a murderer. Do you think for one moment that there was anything else buzzing in_his brain than that of the murder? And when George King gives you his testimony it is appar- ent that he is his friend, and an unwilling witness.” George R. King’s testimony was here read, showing that Darrant stood at the entrance to the room a moment. It was the pallor of nervous exhaustion on his face. ‘“He stood pale, disheveled, his hair mussed, the pallor of nervous exertion on his face. e did so stand, but the de- fendant says: ‘I came up to the door and said, Hello! George, playing the piano?’ the defendant let slip one thing. When George King said to him, ‘Why do you look so pale?’ he said—and mark this, gentlemen of the jury—You would be pale if you had gone through with what I have gone through.’ George King did not tell you that because he did not wish to harm this man more than he needed.” Mr. Peixotto made one or two satirical remarks in reference to Durrant’s attempt- ing to carry off his conversation with George King in a light and airy manner, He said that Durrant was weax when he helpea George King to carry down the organ, and that when he took the bromo seltzer he was nauseated. Testimony was read to prove this and the court adjourned for lancheon. On resuming after lnncheon Mr. Peixotto quoted from Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said, *Sin has many tools, but the lieis the handle that fits them all.” ‘“When this defendant,” continued Mr. Peixotto, “had committed the greatest sin in the whole category, when he had trans- gressed the first laws of God and the high. est laws of man, when he had imbued him self with the greatest of all sins, then, and from that time, my contention is, his en- tire life and acts with reference to the Emmanuel Baptist Church, Blanche La- mont and everything concerning that transaction, was a living lie that has been exposed in its entirety to you. No one had asked Durrant to fiz the sunburners. *‘When he met George King there, when he stood exhausted, pale, disheveled, King said to him ‘What is the matter with you?’ and he then told him ‘I have been upstairs fixing the gas.” We have proved io you that the first words he spoke were false. Take the story as he described it. He says the gas was out of order, that he had a conversation with Sademan, the janitor. This he places on the 24th of March. But, gentlemen of the jury, here is what Mr. Sademan says about that: [Frank Sademan’s testimony was read, showing that on the 3d of April the gasap- paratus in the Emmanuel Baptist Church was in perfect condition. | “From each and every one of the trus- tees of the church we haye the same an- swer that none of them had spoken to this defendant about the gas. If, taking his story to be true for the moment, they had spoken to him on the 24th about the gas, in that light of the case how in the name of heaven was this man so unfortunate, how were the gods so leazued against him that they should have peen leit unfinished | to this fatal day, April 3?2 That wasa busy day, you will remember. He says he was at the lecture or one part of it. How was it that this man was up there to re- pair the gas fixtures when the day before the plumbers were there, and on the next the company sent their men to take down the sunburners, removing all work he claims to have done. What the experts said about the effects of inhaling gas. “There was nothing to corroborate him, and everything to disbelieve him on this ground. If he had waited for a week and a half after finding out the tixture was not in order, do you think he was going to sneak away from the lecture, hurry to the church and turn on the gas? Why, if the burners had been out of order and he had turned on the gas, the atmosphere would be in a condition to explode. He might have been suffocated, but if he had not got to that stage, he would at least have got to a cherry red, as was testified to by Profes- sor Price, the most. celebrated chemist in this State, whose reputation is as broad as this State. The gas that he had beer: tam- pering with was the life breath of Blanche Lamont—that and that alone, and he was never near that sunburner save when he passed by ana down. If he had been at the fixture he would have had the tools with him when he appeared before George King. That I say is the first falsehood. How Durrant's conscience troubled him at the prayer-meeting. ‘“The first thing that he tells you is dis- proved by science and by medicine. That night he goes home to his mother who says that his appetite was not good—but I do not want to take the testimony of the mother against the aefendant. He was not feeling well and he went to the church. He sat down there. Mrs. Noble came to the church. At that ti nobody in the congregation knew that Blanche Lamont was missing. Mrs. Noble did not want the story to get out. Of course she was troubled. Of course she was worried, for Blanche Lamont went through the even tenor of her life with great regularity. ‘Who, above all, is the first to mention the name of the missing girl? Somebody had a gnawing at his innerself. Somebody there was, who was not there for the pur- pose of prayer or devotion, but for the pur- pose of covering up his true identity. Durrant watching at the Jerries for the missing girl. “That person was Theodore Durrant. He was watching Mrs. Noble, he tells you. He saw her cast a paper at Mrs. Moore. He in his guilty conscience was waiching her, moved up to her and said: ‘Did Blanche Lamont come home? I've got a book I'm going to bring to her.’ Look through the history of any crime and see how the human mind tries to conceal and to put itself in the way of innocence. We will see how he carried this through. “Time went on. The girl was reported missing. He joined actively in the search. He gave suggestions, offered his services, offered the services of his friends. He de- precated the work of datectives that were out. He said they were not doing their duty, and it was while the search was at its height, and while all had nearly given up hope of finding this missing girl, then it was left to this defendant, to this man above all, to find, as he says, a clew to Blanche Lamont’s disappearance. Theo- dore Durrant, as we contend, bad a very different errand at the foot of Market strest on the 12th day of April than his evidence will disclose. He was there, nevertheiess, watching the boats coming in for Bianche Lamont. He was waiting and watching for something. We do not know exactly what, “I am looking for Blanche Lamont. I have a clew.” ‘“Again the fates were against him, for Sademan was there watching and waiting for somebody. There is a peculiar thing about that bit of testimony. It is only a drop in this great mass of testimony, only five lines, but it speaks volumes. =W hen he saw Sademan and Sademan saw him, the janitor said: ‘What are you doing here?” You will remember that Sademan was the janitor of the church. He was connected in many ways with all of the congregation, and would be likely to re- port what he had heard from anybody to others of the congregation. Sademan knew Blanche Lamont. He was interested in the church, and when this defendant saw Sademan another thing cropped up 1n his mind. He thought of Blanche Lamont, and when he met this man Sademan ne dropped that unfortunate remark: ‘Ob, I am looking for Blanche Lamont. I have a clew to follow. She is going to leave San Francisco this afternoon.’ 3 “Then came the query: ‘Wheredid you get that clew?’ Now, remember, gentle- men, that up to that time nothing affirma- tive had been shown of Blanche Lamont. A stranger on the street tapped him on the shoulder. “Gentlemen, you who have tried larceny cases know that the possession of the stolen goods by the defendant isthe one strong point of the case. And how do these petty criminals set about to clear themselves of that damning evidence—to explain away the possession of those stolen goods? You know their story. They tell the jury about a mysterious stranger who NEW TO-DAY. Munyon's Triumph! 85,000 Residtfi of San Fran- cisco Have Adopted His New System. Old-FashiorEl Drugging Routed. LOOK 0UT FOR IITATIONS, A few years ago Professer Munyon, a man of giant intellect, benevolent purposes and determined character,unfolded his new school of medicine through the medium of the pressto the public. He did not come with the flourishing of trumpets, proclaiming the wonders of his cures, but with calm and conftident assurance of the curative powers of his remedies, advertised to give thousands of vials of Rheumatism Cure “absolutely free” to the public, and re- quested them to be the jurors to decide upon its merits. What has the verdict been? One continued success throughout this vast continent. Thousands of suffer- ers, who never knew what it was to be free from pain, bless the name of Munyon, the modern benefactor of the human_ race. Advertising has its advantages in bringing it before tae people, but the unquestiona- ble merit of his preparations has stood the test for the past four years, and now Pro- fessor Munyon’s name is a household word in every family in this country, proving without a doubt the efficacy of his cures and the honest victory he has won against bigotry and prejudice, To those who are still in doubt we have this to say: If you are careless about your own health, have mercy on the little ones who know no bet- ter. and do not commit the sin of neglect by continuing to give remedies that will doubtless harm them in after life, when you have in your reach, at a nominal price, cures that will effect the desired result without injury to the system. RHEUMATISM CURED. Munyon’s Rheumatism Cure is guaran- teed to cure rheumatism in any parv of the body. Acute or muscular rheumatism can be cured in from one to five days. It speedily cures shooting pains, sciatica, lumbago and all rheumatic pains in the back, hips and loins. It seldom fails to ‘give ‘relief after one or two doses, and almost invariably cures before one bottle has been used. STOMACH AND DYSPEPSIA CURE. Munyon’s Stomach and Dyspepsia Cure cures all forms of indigestion and stomach trouble such as rising of food, distress after eating, shortness of breath, and all af- fections of the heart caused by indigestion, wind on the stomach, bad taste, offensive breath, loss of appetite, faintness or weak- ness of stomach, headache from indiges- tion, soreness of the stomach, coatea tongue, heartburn, shooting pains in the . stomach, constipation, dizziness, faintness and lack of energy. Munyon’s Nerve Cure cures all the symptoms of nervous exhaustion, such as | depressed spirits, failure of memory, rest- less and sleepless nights, pains in the head and dizziness. It cures general de- bility, stimulates and strengthens the nerves and tones up the whole body. Price, 25 cent Munyon’s Kidney Cure cures pains in the back, loin or groins from kidney dis- ease, dropsy of the feet and limbs, frequent desire to pass water, dark colored and turbid urine, sediment in the urine and diabetes. Price, 25 cents. CATARRH CURED. Catarrh positively cured—Are you will- ing to spend 50 cents for a cure that posi- tively cures catarrh by removing the cause of the disease? If so ask your druggist for a 25-cent bottle of Munyon’s Catarrh Cure and a 25-cent bottle of Catarrh Tablets. The catarrh cure will eradicate the dis- ease from the system and the tablets will cleanse and heal the afflicted parts and restore them to a natural and health- ful condition. Munyon’s Liver Cure corrects headache, biliousness, jaundice, constipation and all liver diseases. Munyon’s Cold Cure prevents pneumonia and breaks up a cold in a few hours, Munyon’s Cough Cure stops coagh, night s, allays soreness and speedily heals the lungs. Munyon’s Female Remedies are a boon to all women. Munyon’s Headache Cure stops head- ache in three minutes. Munyon's Pile Ointment positively cures all forms of piles. Munyon’s Asthma Cure and Herbs are guaranteed to relieve asthma in three minutes and cure in five days. Price, 50 cents each. g Munyon’'s Blood Cure eradicates all im- purities from the blood. Munyon'’s Vitalizer imparts new life, re- stores Jost powers to weak and debilitated men. Price §1. Munyon’s Homeopathic Remedy Com- pany, 1505 Arch street, Philadelphia, Pa., puts up specifics for nearly every disease, mostly for 25 cents a bottle. SOLD BY ALL DRUGGISTS. Before You Buy Lo Ghirardelli’s “GROUND” CHOCOLATE IS HEALTH GIVING— MONEY SAVING—— IT IS IMITATED BUT HAS NO ‘‘SUBSTITUTES NOTARY PUBLIC. HARLES H. FPHILLI 5 law and Notary Tabiic, 635 St ele- site P alace Hotel, Residence Phone 070 el Residy 1620 Fell s b 1