The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, October 26, 1895, Page 8

8 THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1895. DICKINSON PLEADS FOR DURRANT'S LIFE, VALIDITY OF DR. CHENEY'S ROLLCALL INSISTED UPON. FAULTY IDENTIFICATION CLAIM MADE THAT Mgs. CROSSETT AND MRS. VOGEL PREVARICATED. No A REASONABLE DOUBT URGED. MRs. LEAK CRITICIZED FOR NoT TESTIMONY EARLIER IN THE CaASE. THE DURRANT TRIAL IN A MINUTE—MR. INSO PEECH. 3 H. Dickinson spoke for Theo- dore Durrant yesterdsy, arguing, as weil as d Blanche Lamont in the 1 Church. tress upon the rolleall of Dr. re on the afternoon of April 3, od not only unimpeached, not have murd but was als o corroborated by the direct testi- | of the defendant. testified to s revaricat cation witnesses were mistaken and la. 1g under hallucinations. argument was ok, time he asked that he to conclude his address at urt. This was granted 1 until next Tuesday m d that Mr. Deuprey will be recove iently by Tuesday to make &n argument, though he will undoubtedly do 50 if possible. — A DAY FOR DURRANT. His Counsel Wastes No Words Introductory Pleasantries, but Goes at Once to Work. Yesterday it wasa well-set, middle-aged vho stood by the long green-covered ble and talked all day. He spoke in a monotone almost entirely, rarely raising b i ve the conversational pitch, nes letting it fall so low that aphers must watch the move- is lips to catch the full mean- the words. crent Mr. Deuprey would have d. But these same com- ot begruage to Mr. Dick- inson the c: due him for his terseness, his quiet, matter-of-fact, unostentatious iel Pe s he was too quiet to be At no time stic or become heated Durrant himself could ve spoken with less show of feel- But he weighed his words before he spake the nd there wasa refreshing absence of introductory irrelevanc He seemed to take it for granted that the ju- rors were intellizent enough to know why and with what degree of carefulness they been sclected. He presumed that the ousness of the case, the responsibility of ibér of witnesses called and the length the Judge and the jury, together with the of time alre med in hearing the case, werd nizant facts to court and jury and too patent to need reitera- tion. in r things before him of e was not quite so sure, probably. t not be so patent to the jury, this task front of him—the innocence of Theodore I So he set to work at once, wasting but a scant number of words in_introducing his subject, ana before he had talked half a typewritten folio, though he spoke slowl: he was ! his argument. ©T wil ng of the 3d of close of the afternoon session all that he said concerned the testimony in the case. He laid great stress upon the correctness of Dr. Cheney’s rollcall. He called it the pivotal point of the case and argued long that there could be no mistake about it. ce of the defendant himself. The State had failed to disprove the cor- rectness of the rollcall, he said. And when it failed in that it failed in all respects to establish the guilt of Durrant. He criticized Dr. Graham for not having made known his testimony until the trial was nearly over. Then he spoke of the conduct of Durrant at the time of his ar- rest. ‘I am as satisfied of his innocence by his conduct at that time,” said Mr. Dickinson, ‘‘as much as by any other cir- cumstance in the case.” Perhaps he meant by this to affirm his belief in Durrant’s innocence, but the words themselves may be interpreted in more than one way, He said, however, that Durrant did not murder Blanche Lamont, that he had no motive for the deed, and that the evidence showed none. ‘With the exception of Quinlan he did not accuse any of the identification wit- nesses with having deliberately sworn falsely. He rather suggested that they were mistaken—that they were influenced in their belief by public opinion and by what they had read in the sensational dail y papers, and that they were afflicted with hallucinations and delusions. But their honesty he did not question. It might have been either a crank or an emissary of the Police Department—this mysterious strangar who tapped Durrant on the shoulder and told him to go search at the ferries for Blanche Lamont. And at all events, the point was immaterial, he said, for even had Durrant told an untruth about it—which was purely an imaginary hypothesis for the sake of the argument— it did not tend in any way to prove that he murdered Blanche Lamont. Mrs. Leak's testimony he did not likeat all, because she had hidden it so long, when she might have been a witness at the preliminary examination. Meantime Durrant listened apprecia- tively, though as calmly as ever. He sat at the other end, from Mr. Dickinson, of the defense’s long green-covered table ang turned hie face partly toward the crowd so that every one in the audience caught at least a good profile view of him, and those fortunately seated, or standing, could even look him in the eye. He took no note while his counsel spoke and did not once in the day yawn sleepily. The mother and father appear hopeful, but their faces are as inexpressive of emo- tion as that of their son. They sit quietly most of the time, in the second row of chairs behind the table. Sometimes they whisper to each other or to one of the ladies who always sit with them. Yester- day they watched Mr. Dickinson, closely, and drank in every word appreciatively. dant did notand could | not concluded by 4 | , and from then till the | Moreover, it was corroborated by the evi. | | Judge chewed a toothpick and smiled to | himself when Mr. Dickinson made a tell- | ing point for the young man feside him— the quiet young man accused of so hein- ous a crime. Chief Crowley came in and listened to the first part of Mr. Dickinson’s speech. Pastor Gibson and Secretary Lynch sit be- bind Detectives Bowen and Seymour. Mrs. Noble and Maud Lamont have chairs in the front row near the pastor—when the regular order of things is not interrupted. Yesterday society was represented by a delegation of ladies and their escorts from the Browning Club. The delegation came originally to hear Mr. Peixotto talk, but it caught the fever and came back again yes- terda; Mr. Dickinson had not tinished his argu- ment when court adjourned for the day— though he might have done so, as he said, had not the atmosphere of the crowded TO! been so stifling. He begged the privilege of concluding Tuesday morning, promising to occupy but little time then. e Lt e MR. DICKINSON’S SPEECH. A Matter-of-Fact Statement of the Claims Made on Behalf of Durrant. | Attorney John H. Dickinson, who, since | the illness of Mr. Deuprey has had full charge of the defense, began the opening argument for Durranc as soon as the court opened yesterday morning. With most commendable brevity Mr. | Dickinson omitted the customary intro- ductory flattery of the jury and the ~ourt and its officers, and went at once to the heart of his subject. May it please the court and gentlemen of the jury: We are approaching to the conclu- sions of this case. The quantity of testimony | which we have taken, much of which has nec- | essarily been immateriai, has been very great, and as we are all very anxious to get through with the trial I shall proceed at once with my rgument. I will start with the morning of the 3d of April, and call your attention to the position and relation of the two principal characters in this tragedy. The defendant, & young man of 24, of good character and good association. He had been well brought up. His associations | bad been of the best, and his character was | unsullied at that time, es it stands unsullied to-day by any testimony that has been pro- duced. The testtmony shous motive for the crim 1 challenge the prosecution or any one else \ no | to produce one iota of testimony which leads | or points in any manner or degree whatever, ven to the suspicion of the existence of any ng in his character. There is no such tes- timony—and it is important that this should be borne in mind. for uniridied passion was given by the learned counsel for the prosecu- tion as the motive for the crime. Of course we will understand, and it is a fair proposition of argument that there is uznally a motive where there is a crime. In other words, a man does not commit a crime without a motl inducement or some idea. And now,at the et of this case, I submit to you that there in this case to_show any motive for mission of this erime by the defendant. He was upon that fatal morning young, studi- | ous, industrious, of A No. 1 cheracter. 1 Blanche Lamont was not de- pendent upon Durrant for escort. The young lady who unfortunately lost her life on that day, or some time shortly after, I believe her alzo'to have been of unblemished reputation. There was no particular intimacy between these parties. An examination of the record will show the character of the associ- ation between the defendant and the deceased, and yon must consider the ecircumstances under which they met. They met but seldom This young lady was not of a retiring disposi- tion, but she acted naturally, as the estimony s. attended the ‘meetings of the deavor Society ench week, as also g clu the Sunday evening ser- be church. She was also a member of ie orchestra of Grace Church. She was not I have heard ted that she was dependent upon him for escort. Such is not the case, The meeting between Blanche and Durrant was accidental. lay great stressin the course of my ient on the naturalness with which these s, especially the defe acted. Under s an which have > testimi e defend d have is way to the house of George King, ke A1 Arrangement to meet hi t rnoon for two purpose: caslights and the other to carry | organ to the lower room. It indispu ¥ pears from the testimony that the defendant had been in the habit of fixIng the light in the church, By his own testimony and by his connectlon with the church he was welcome to attend to these matters, and he had done so. By n reference to Mr. Sademan’s testimony we d that the lights were not in proper condi- tion. Durrant went to the church to fiz the sunburners. Sademan tells us that at times when pressing the button the firstor sccond time the lights did not act. The burners were not out of re. pair. It was merely the sutometic spark which wanted fixing, and Durrant went there for the purpose of regulating it. This testimony cor- roborates the defendant’s in that respect. On this morning the young lady was on her way to scnool. They met, 5o far as we know, by | chance. There is nothing to indicate that they met by appointment. They met at the corner of the strect and a conversation ensued, which has been given by the defendant. There is nothing out of the way about that. They boarded the car together.” We know that the young lady had been acquainted with the de. iendant for about five montns. Had there | been anything wrong with him she would | have known it. The young ladies with whom she associated at the church would have told her. Durrant himself told of the ride in the morning. The ladies of the church with whom Blanche Lamont associated would have known it had there been anything to know of evil in this young man’s character. The prosecution takes great credit to itself for having discovered the fact that the defendant and Blanche Lamont rode on the car on the 3d of April to the High School. They discovered that from the defend- ant himself. On the 3d of April in the evening he told Mrs. Noble that he had been with Blanche Lamont in the morning. On the 14th of Aprilin the prison_he again said the same toing. His story, as shown by the testimony, is perfectly consistent. 1f this young lady had been insuited or improperly spoken to in the morning he would never have seen her in the afternoon. - Her innocence would have told her no How natural the conduct of the defendant on the 3d. How natural the conduct of the defendant was on the evening of the 3d of April. He met Mrs. Noble at the church, and told her about the conversation referring to the book, “The Newcomes,” saying he would bring Blanche the book. The information was then eonveyed to Mrs. Noble that the young lady had ridden on the car with him. Again on the fol.owin day he calied at the house. He took the boo! there. It'seems to me that a guilty manavould not do that. There is too much method in that for a guilty man. The guilty man makes mis- takes. The young lady got off at her school and he proceeded to college. The usual routine was gone through until the noon recess, and then, by defendant’s testimony, we have it that he took two walks. Durrant never atténded the lectures of Dr. Hansen. He went out once and returned, and seein, that there was not to be a lecture by Dr. Slflfi m! he went out with a student named Ross. 1 ars from the testimony that there was rrence of that kind. 1 submit the de- fendant’s testimony is absolutely corroborated as to his having taken those walks at that time. As 10 Hansen’s lecture, on which great stress is laid, as he did not attend them, we do not deny that, as he had not done so forsome time, So much for the talk of the Hansen lecture. We come down now to the lecture given by Dr. Cheney in the afternoon. Isubmit that the testimony is clear and undisputed that the de- fendant yas at that lecture, that his testimony to that effect is borne out by the evidence of Dr. Cheney and Dr. Gray and by his fellow Class students. Great stress has been laid upon the rolleall. Dr. Cheney's rollcall is corrobo- rated by Durrant. And it is right that great stress should be Inid upon the rolicall.” Attention has been called 10 the pencil marks and erasures which appear upon it. It hasbeen said that it is un- reliable. Now I desire to read you some por- tions of the testimony on that proposition. Mr. Dickinson here read from the rec- ords, and then continued: I don’t think any testimony could be more positive or direct than that of Dr. Cheney as 10 the correctness of the rolleall. I read also from the testimony of Mr. Gray about tho al- leged changes in the rollcall. Dr. Cheney cor- Toborates tnis testimony, and I submit that the rolleall is perfectly reliable. 1do not think it will be claimed by the prosecution that any changes were made for the purpose of fixing ”" ATTORNEY DICKINSON BEFORE THE JURY. ‘“ The defendant gives a reasonable explanation of what he did to the sunburners.” [Sketched by a “Call” artist.) the absence or attendance of any student. in & case of this kind we are not entitled w draw upon our imagination as to what may have been or should have been. We mustlook at the cold facts as they are shown by the testi- mony. We are oniy entitlied to draw logical conclusions. The rollcail the pivotal point in the case. We are not entitled to suévp?_\'the missing testimony. The defendant is entitled to_be heard as a witness just as much asany other witness. This rolleall is the pivotal point in this case. If that rolleall be correct the prose- cution fails in everyother respect. Are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that that rolleall is incorrect? How better is the de- fendant’s assertion substantiated than in the | way it stands before you at the present time? Nobody would accuse the professor or Mr. Gray of tampering with the rollcall. It has been the subject of exhaustive examination by both sidés. The question was interposed and ruled out regarding the matter of the rollcall. On the suggestion of the court seventy-four stu- dents were called. It might be said that the information is negative. The students could not remember who were absent. I do not believe that these young men, to whose class pride reference was made, would be carried by that pride into the field of per- jury. The question is asked., Why doesn’t some one come forward and say ‘‘I saw him there”? The testimony answers the auestion. The students have no social hall where they gather together except for purposes of their work. They are not like schoolbooys who spend their playhours together. The students are very busy from early morning till late at night. "They go from class to class. At length of time they are unable to recailany particular stndent who was absent. On t 3d of April Dr. Cheney tells us that there was no confusion when he called the roll. Those absent are marked, but nothing is placec against the names of those who are present. Durrant's notes compared with those of Student Glaser. I challenge any experiment 10 prove that the rollcall has been tampered with. A great deal has been said ebout the notes taken at the le ture. Thave here the defendant’s notebook, in that book, 1n their regular orde: five pages of notés. The defendant he took these notes at the lecture, except two rules which he copied from Glaser. 1 have the notes of Glaser and also those of the defe An examination will show that one i copled irom the other. T will compare They are written side by side. There is a dii- ference in the order in which the notes are ar- ranged in the respective notebooks. I feel that these differences are of great materiality. There are differences there which I have en- deavored to point out to you, which could not have occurred in the manner suggested—by copying. Glaser would have known it if Durrant had no note?. Mr. Glaser's testimony does not go to show that the notes were copled. If this defendant had appeared at that time and had not had any notes whatever, because he had not been present at_the lecture, would not Mr. Glaser ave discovered 1t? Would not some attention have been drawn to it? Yet there was nothing. It was not unusual for students to do exactly as they did on that occasion. Now, with regard to Dr. Graham’s testimony, 1 assert that he is mistaken. It took Dr.Graham up to about the 5th of October o come 10 divulge the proposi- tion to which he testified. I submit that in the condition of affairs at that time the defendant would not have asked him any question. His notes were then in the possession of his at- torney. Why should Durrant ask Graham for his notes 1 These notes had been in our possession for three days before the interview with Graham, when he testified that defendant said he had Why did he want to make any such request of Dr.Graham? This is what you are called upon to consider. 1 submit that the de- fendant said nothing of the kind and he could not have any reason for doing so. Dr. Graham is another case of overeducation. has grown upon him. Why didn’t he say it be- fore? Why did he wait till the 5th of October? Isubmii, 1f the court please, that the factof the defendant’s t!)l’t?fien(:e at that rollcall is es- tablished beyond the peradventure of a doubt. And now we come to the testimony of those witnesses who looked across the street. Ido not believe that the test‘mony which has been introduced on those points can be accepted as conclusive. Mrs. Crosett and Mrs. Leak did not see him. I do not believe it will convince any man who will carefully cousider and weigh it, and weigh the circumstances surrounding the character of the testimony. Jf the defendant was at that lecture he was not on Powell street. The young girls did not see him. Mrs. Crosett did not see him. Mrs. Leak did not see him. The defendant took the witness- stand and swore thathe was at that lecture, then Dr. Cheney and Mr. Gray came along with the roll-book and showed that it corroborated his testimony. 1 have examined every mem- ber of the class, and believe that roll to be cor- rect. What more can be said about it? Then we have these nctes. We have the fact that Glaser could have contradicted him if he had stated an untruth. All this is plain if you di- gest the evidence properly. Durrant went to the church after Dr. Cheney's lecture. You can look into the books of the defendant and of Glaser and you can compare them just as well as I can. I ask you to do so, with a view to determine if there is anything that in- dicates that one is a copy of the other. I be- lieve that you will be satisfied from an exam- ination that these notes would naturally be kept by two different gersonu upon the same occasion and in regard to the same subject. The testimony of the defendant shows that upon the.conclusion of that lecture, at 4:45, he went to the church. That his testimony 1s ¢or- rect as to the time he went there is corrobor- ated by what I have stated regarding the roll- cail and the keeping of, the notes. The lecture closed that afternoon at 4:15 and the roll was called at the close of the lecture. Several re- porters have testified that in an interview of the 14th of April the defendant said that he went to the church from 4 to 4:30 o'clock. Durrant concealed nothing about his ride on the car. Thet was Durraut’s statement upon thc} This thing | | stand, and when he said that he meant that was the time he left the college. The state- | ment is not strained. It bears no suspicion in any respect. 1 think that hisstatement in that respect is worthy of crede At the time | this statement was made the young man had just been brought in. He had been in jail about one hour. The town was flooded with extras regarding the matter e police were on the qui vive and everything was in a state of excitement. Iie was in thel booking-room of the City Prison in his uniform. He was then called ipon to make a statement, and, under all circumstances and conditions, T am grati- | fied he did not make any break in his state- ment. 1am as satisfied of his innocence from his conduct at that time as from any other fact in the case. He was almost assanited by news- gatherers (0 give a statement, and in_his cage he made this statement. He concealed noth- ing about his ride on the car, and there is no doubt he told it to others. | Durrant would have made an appointment with Blanche. | There is nothing that I can find or surmise t | to show that there was any engagement what- er to me t Blanche Lamont on the afternoon and certainly if he had intended | to they would have said something about it. | He would not have been running up and down in front of the school and in front of Mrs. Vo- | gel’s opera-glass. His conduct as he has ap- | peared in the courtsince ihe time of his arrest— | is entire behavior, controverts and absolutely denies even thesuspicion of such a character as | is painted by the prosecution. 1 defy the pros- | ecution to produce even one single straw from the evidence or to bring forth anything that points to any such change in the conduct of the prisoner at any time which might resuit in | such a deed. It séems to me that there should be something here before it can be charged that he was changed from the exemplary | young man into the monster. It is a mon- strous proposition to advance under the cir- | cumstances and conditions as they heve been | produced and laid before you in this case. Durrant told_Mrs. Noble he was to bring the book. 1 have heard it suggested that Blanche Lamont went with the defendant in the aiter- noon to get the book. That will not hold for the reason that he told Mrs. Noble he was to bring the book. On the evening of the 3d of April, 50 far as we know, nobody knew of the disappearance of the girl. Mrs. Noble made no suggestion regarding it.until days and days after. Upon his arrival at the church the de- fendant gives a rational and reasonable explan- ation of what he did there regarding this gas- burner and what he did after he left there. Sxpert testimony as regards the amount of gas that can be inhaled is of no value in this case. | The defendant had to reach well out with his hand in order to reach the burnersand his head would naturally be over only a few of the burners. iy did_Durrant go down to rge King? | Ithink it will appear that the defendant is & | young man of common-sense. 1 do not think thatany of his faculties, even his sense of seli- preservation, has been blunted. There was no | reason, if heiad committed this_crime, that | he should have gone down t6 Mr. King at all. He could have gone out and nobody would have been the wiser. 1 am rather surprised that the prosecution treated, King as an un- villing witness. I think he madea good im- pression. If this defendant had committed that crime why did he not go on his way? I | submit that the conduct of_the defendamt® as | to1d both by him and Mr. King as to what they did is perfectly natural. There has been some dispute as to whether one_grows pale or red irom the effects of gas. It is not pretended that so much gas was inhaled as to seriously aflect him, Itonly affected him to a small extent. He would have made no remark if he had been guilty. Consider what he did. He took the ladder down; he worked the push buttons. He could do this and have a headache. He cer- tainly had his senses about him when he went down to see King, and he remarked to his friend: “If you had gone through what I have you would be pale, too.” He would have made no remark at all if he had been guilty. It was purely voluntary on his own part. There was nothing in the conduct of the parties that re- quired him to make anystatement at all. Then he asked for some bromo-seltzer. Now I won- der why Mrs. Leak did not see King go out for the bromo-seltzer and see them go home to- gether. I dwell upon these metters because they appear to me to be perfectly natural ac- tions of the parties. I do not see ang!hlux out of the way in them. After taking the bromo- seltzer the defendant helped King to carry down the organ. 1submit that a careful ex- amination of all the proceedings in thechurch, 50 far as appears or can be logically presumed, all points to the absolute innocence of this de- fendant. If it be true that he is guilty he was a monster. The prosecution thinks he became suddenly & monster. That might account for this, but We are 1ot to assume any such change as that, and if snysuch change did take place it isa very peculiar ract that it only took place for the performance of this act. Nothing before and nothing since gives us reason to believe or to suspect that such a change took place. After leaving the church they went to their respective homes, If it be true that this man is guilty he was a monster, not & man, except in form. He went to his home In a natural way. He partook of his dinner and then went to the church, as was his custom. He spoke to rs. Noble about “The Newcombs” and about his having ridden with_Blanche to the school. What he said to Mrs. Noble and the way he said it did not attract her attention, and has never called for her criticism up to the present time. He called at the house on the5th of April and saw Miss Maud. Blanche Lamont was not the sweetheart of Durrant. Why should the defendant, if he were guilty, do these things? He took part in the search for the missing girl. It was not strange that Le should be interested in finding her, t ousu, as I have said, there had been no particulat relations between them. The evidence shows that the defendant never called upon her but gnce, and then in company with his sister, Then they had a ride to t{a park. There is nothing suspicious about that. He was not her beau and she was not hissweetheart. They were just acquaintances, meeting almost always at the church. The testimony tends to throw into relief tho moral conduct of tae de- fendant in his association with the young ladies of the congregation. He could not have gone through with this Christian Endeavor Association for four years if he had been a bad boy, and I submit thatit is the very highest evidence of his good character that he was treated as he was by the mothersand danghters of the congregation, always with the utmost confidence. At this point the noon recess was taken. The defendant_not_obliged to prove himself innacent. In the afternoon Mr. Dickinson resumed his argument. As I understand the law, he said, a prob- | able presumption ought to be resolved in favor of the defendant. Further, the defendant is held by the law to be innocent until he has been proven guilty. The mere fact that he has been called upon to answer is not sufficient evidence of his guilt. The defendant is not obliged to prove himself innocent. That prin- ciple of law is particularly applicable in this case. Now, as to matters of identification, I know of nothing that is more fallible than identification. This matter cuts a very great figure in this case. Two of the witnesses who swore regarding the identification of the de- fendant never saw him before in their lives. Yet they come here with the most positive testimony that they did identify him on that occasion. Mrs. Leak’s testimony to .be taken with suspicion. General Dickinson here discussed Mr. Quinlan’s testimony in regard to the time he is stated to have seen Durrant on the street. Then he turned to Mrs. Leak: 1 believe that any one having any informa- tion of this character, when the whole town was ablaze with excitement over the crime which had been committed, would have spoken earlier than she did. I submit there is au im- pulse in the human heart which wovld atsuch a time say, “Go and give the information.” Mrs. Leak kept this in her breast for months and says she told her friend, Mrs. Henry, that she had suspicions who it was. She said, “I am biding my time to tell.” But we may be suspi- cious of any person who actsin that way, be- cause it is unnatural. As to Mrs. Vogel, I do not say that she came here to prevaricate, but ner belief is based upon certain circumstances, even hallucinations. Mrs. Vogel mistook a sack coat Jor a cutaway coat. She says the defendant wore a cutaway suit, with lighter pants. By the way, I want you to notice that it is a sack, not a cutaway suit. (Exhibiting Durrant’s clothes to the jury.) I can hardly conceive how anybody could make such a mistake as to the difference between a sack and a_cutaway, particularly when using an opera-glass, as Mrs. Vogel saysshe did. Mrs, Vogel's testimony is in direct contradiction to Miss Edwards’. Mrs. Vogel said that Durrant came up behind the girls, but Miss Edwards says that he came up and spoke to them. I submit, in conclusion, that Mrs. Vogel was and is mistaken. She is nervous, and all the more likely to have been educated in the man- ner I have suggested. Bear in mind that she had never seen the defendant before, and had 10 personal acquaintance with him, and could not identify him in any manner except as she did, by coming and sitting in this court to my right and watching him. Why didw't Mrs. Crossett tell Pastor Gibson what she saw? We will come now to Mrs. Crossett. There is no one who respects age more than myself. There is no one who respects youth and inno- cence more than myself, but I beg leave to call your attention to afact with which we are all familiar—that there are two ages in life in which we are always very positive; in youth and old age. Mr. Dickinson here told of experiments which had been made in regard to ascer- taining the length of time it took to get from California and Powell streets to Bart- lett street. Then he said: I say that her facilitles for observation were not such as would make her a witness in an identification matter. Why didn’t she tell her f“w” He had been mentioned in the case. prefer to accept the testimony of the rollcall and of Drs. Cheney and Gray. Perhaps it was a detective who gave Durrant the clew. Mr. Peixotto has scoffed at the idea that a stranger tapped Durrant on the shoulder and gave him a clew where to search for Blanche Lamant. Now there have been a great many people in this case Who have volunteered b mass of information, mostly anonymously. It bas come {rom all quarters, and it has gener- ally taken the line of attemmpting to solve this mystery in a simple manner.” The trial of such & case as this always produces & large number of cranks. Could it not have been one of these who ln‘ppzd the defendant on the shoulder? There is another explanation. When & man has no suspicion of a crime itis one of the commonest tricks of the police to make sug- gestions such as the defendant says were mage to him. The suggestion was made to him to look for the girl, and he, the suggester, imme- diately departed. Detectives had the matter in hand, and they had suggested that the girl had been placed in a house of ill fame. Mrs. Leak is a victim of overeducation. If this defendant had not been anxious to tell you the truth, the whole truth, about this transaction, he need not have mentioned the fact that he requested some one to answer the rollcalls. Isubmit that he went on the wit- ness-stand and told you what was for and what was nfi?inn him, where he went and what he did. That is the criterion by which his evi- dence must be judged. I watched him on the witness-stand and he did not seem inclined to conceal anything. The prosecution in this case had all the means at hand for carrying on the fight. They have done their utmost, but I do not believe they have used unfair means, They knew everything, and if the defendant's testimony was untrue they could produce the contradicting testimony, if itexisted. As to Mrs, Leak, the great fault I find with her is she is & Tt Stesintor e T of the other ladies of the church. Did sl retain her evidence out of friendship l!)or lll:: defendant? No. She did not hesitate to give her evidence in the most positive terms, At this point court adjourned till Tues- day morning, when Mr. Dickinson will cpnclude his argument, She visited a num-" T0VOTE IN SACRAMENTO. REMARKABLE SCRAMBLE OF FOR- MER RESIDENTS OF SAN FRANCISCO. WILL THEY RETURN TO US? SuspICION THAT MANY OF THEM ARE OF THE CrLass KNOWN As “ STUFFERS.” Registrar Hinton has for some days past been in receipt of a flood of letters from Sacramento from former residents of this City who are desirous of being transferred | from the voting-lists of this City to those | So much interest is felt | of the capital. and hurry experienced that latterly they have taken to telegraphing. There is a filein the Registrar’s office where these applications stand a foot deep. The suddenness of the stampede has at: tracted attention. Now in Sacramento just about the hot- | test campaign that the local politics of that city bave witnessed in many QBys is working up to the city election on Novem- ber 5. ’ The fight centers upon the mayoralty, for which office there are four candidates— Wilson (R.), Lawton (D.), Abbott (Pop.) and Steinman (Ind.). Steinman is the in- cumbent, and in the campaign that re- sulted in his election he was supported by Bart Cavanaugh, formerly a lientenant of Frank Rhoads, the long-time political boss. ‘When Rhoads became disabled by sick- ness foravork in the field, Cavanaugh set up shop for himself, with what success was shown by Steinman’s election. But Rhoads is again in the field. He succeeded in_having Wilson nominated, and now the fight is on for the supremacy of this or that of the bosses, rather than for the election of either of the candidates. With Rhoads it is the fight of his life, for defeat probably means retirement, while his success means the same to Bart Cava- naugh, for he could probsbly never again be a lieutenant of Rhoads. Itis likely, -therefore, that one of these circumstances explains the other—the ne- cessity for voters in Sacramento and the hegira from this City to that. The applications on file do not by any means represent the number who have se- cured cards of removal, for many applica- tions were made in person and no record kept of them. The interesting query is as to whether these gentlemen will be back to this City in time to vote at the next elec- | tion. Following is the list of names, ad- dresses and occupations of those who have | Many of them, no doubt, are | bona-tide removals, but many more are | thus left us. under the shadow of suspicion.” Here they are: Burley, Dudley, railroad man, 305 Minna, Burrington, Jerry Atlen, bookkeeper, 2716 Howard. Bogart, John G., cooper, 116 Silver. Bodefeld, William, drummer, 102 Langton. Boone, William D., speculator, 115 Haight. Brown, Dr. Robert, 102924 Market. Clark, John P., iron-worker, Potrero. Cummings, Lots, jeweler, 138 Montgomery. Cierk, Percy T., laborer, 111 Taylor. Curington, Henry, lineman, 791 Haight. Chronister, W. G., electricien, 116 Grant ave. Crofton, William, teamster, Brannan. Cunningham, C., porter, 55134 Howard. Cate, William H., printer, 1724 Stevenson. Chatlain, Paul, clerk, 803 Mission. Curtis, W. A., Third and Perry. Cassiday, —, clerk, 3104 Point Lobos avenue. Cohn, E. F.,salesman, 1035 Mission. Duffy, James, horseman, Fifth avenue and D street. Daily. Edward T., teamster, 441 Ivy avenue, Dudgeon, Williem X.. clerk. 510 Geary. Dunham, George C., 527 Kearny. Dyas, E. I., 210 Folsom. ard, Winchell Case, racetrack, Fifth ave- nue and D street. Fanst, William, ironworker, 91514 Mission, Gaffuey, William. clerk. 633 Califomia. Goodrum, Andrew J., laborer, 414 Post. Gogar, Charles, plumber. Haverland, John Lawrence, pressman, 1118 Montgomery. Harrington, Frank, Second and Folsom, Henrikson, Gustave, student, 6 Eday. Henderson, Willlam H., physician, 1306 Valencia. - Hamilton, John C., Bay District Track. Korn, Devid B., printer, Commercial and San- some. ll/phoe, T. G., and F. J. Simmes, clerk, 909 is. Leonard, William L., carpenter, 560 Howard. Magenn, James G., Webster and Washington. Magorn, J. G., printer. Marino, Camilo N., 2010 Mason. McDonald, James, 929 Natoma. Mahone, Jerry, clerk, 1094 Powell. McLaughlin, Frank P., horseman, Richmond District. Mayberry. William L., clerk, 968 Harrison. Magberrs, Charles M., laborer, 968 Harrison, McLaughlin, Thomas J., compositor, 437 Jessie. Martin, George C., 2015 Pine. Mayo, Nathaniel, architect, 719 Twentieth. McKeeven, Henry Haight, laborer, Nine- teenth street and San Carlos avenue. McGaw, Frank, printer, 602 Mission. Moore, Charles Sumner, raiiroad man, 675 Mission. McMillan, G. W., agent, 106 Eighth, Murphy, Lawrence, 163 First. dl(auhewu, Charles, cement worker, 9 Lang- on. Nowlin, J. C., salesman, 957 Market, Oakley, Paul, elerk, 201 Taylor, O'Conner, Terrance J., laborer, Twenty-ninth and Mission. Paterson, James R., butcher, Sixteenth and Folsom. Rogers, Henry, 9 Bartlett. Russell, Horace, clerk, 509 Bush, Roberts, E, E., 540 McAllister. Reed, William' C., contractor, 439 Geary, Rogers, John P., ¢lerk, 602 Buchanan, Roche, Bartholomer, laborer, 1416 Twenty- sixth. Eggbxnson, James Henry, barkeeper, 206 y. Rainsford, Benjamin, laborer, Kearny street. Rockwell, George S., agent. Richardson, A. J., salesman, 919 Page. Shinns, Matthew, laborer, 17 ichigan street, Potrero. Sullivan, D. D., pressman, 707 Brannan. tch;'essel', Robert, laborer, 677} Mission street. Soncke, Gustave, insurance, 1332 Steiner street. Schultenberfi. Jogph, tailor, 528 Ellis street. Souther, C. nter, 1109 Bush street. Schneider, ¥, J., boilermaker, 914 Eleventh avenue. Schriber, Frank, barber, 3 William streot. Steiner, John, saloon-keéper, 224 Sutter street. Wolf, Hyram, tatlor, 303 Stockton street. Williams, Charles E., clerk, 323 Van Ness avenue. Watts, James, buggy-washer, Deyisadero- street stables. Welch, John Richard. pressman, 1106 Bush. Wagner, George, candy-maker, 1386 Market. Wells, Robert M, 23 Water. West, Henry, ealesman, Forty-third District. Wolf, Henry'A., 2006 Polk street. Williams, James H., Presidio. Wayman, Charles, electrician, 958 Folsom. Yoell, Abraham E., lineman, Folsom avente. ESTATE OF MRS. LUX. First Annual Report of the Executors Filed Yesterday. The first annual account of the executors of the Mrs. Miranda W. Lux estate was filed in the Connty Clerk’s office vesterday afternoon. The figures are as follows: Receipts... 8,713,669 47 Disbursements.. 66,073 69 Balance.. $3,647,205 78 . A Verdict for $15,000. A jury in Judge Daingerfield’s court yester- day gave to the London, Liverpool and Globe Insurance Company & verdict for $15,000, in the suit against the Southern Pacific Company relative to the burning of icehouses at Prosser Creek. The plaintiff was heid liable for insur- ance, and it alleges that the fire was caused by sparks from the railroad locomotives. e Fell Under a Lumber Pile. As a result of too close proximity to a lumber wagon just preparing to dump its load, Elmer Savage, & youth about 15 years old, living at 754 Harrison street, was carried to the Receiv- ing Hospital yesterday suffering from a frac- ture of the right leg. "Young Savage was play- ing around the lumber-yard, corner of m:fi; and Channel streets, when a big four-horse team drove up to be unioaded. Justhow it happened no one seems to know, but when the staves were pulled out, allowing the lamber to tumble to the ground, young Savage was buried beneath the pile.” The boy was ex- tracted and carried to the hospital, where Dr. Weil attended to his injuries. A.0.U. W, Anniversary Celebration this Evening “of the Founding of the Order by «Father’” Upchurch, This evening the local lodges of the An- cient Order of United Workmen will meet in Odd Fellows’ Hall for the purpose of celebrating the twenty-seventh anniver- sary of the founding of the order by “Father” Upchurch at Meadeville, Pa. The commirttee of arrangements that for some time has been actively engaged in making preparations for the event has pre- pared the following programme: Overture, selected, Park Band Orchestra; introductory remarks, Chairman neral Committee John Joy; address of welcome, resident of the evening, Grand Master Judg . J. Toohy; solo, cornet, Miss Pearl Nobie; | address, “Good of the Order,” PastSupreme Master ‘Workman William H.' Jordan; bailad, seleeted, Mrs, Walter Malloy; comic song, Sher: iff William 1 Whelan; 1ecitation, select iss Lou Trautner; comicalities, Mr. Eddi weeny; closing address, Past Grand Master W. H. Barnes. The literary exercises will pe followed by dancing. —_—ee ALIRNS M THE PRESIDG SHOTS HEARD AND THE SERGEANT OF THE GUARD UNDER ARREST. A BURGLAR QUIETLY INVESTIGATES THE PLANS OF THE OFFI- CERS’ QUARTERS. There was war and rumors of war, or at {least of the latter, at the Presidio night before last, and the electric lamps at the post shone quite luridly for several hours, Two gunshots were heard out beyond the cemetery where stands the monument that Colonel Graham guards so jealously. At the sound of the shots the sentries, keenly alert for another attack on the marble shaft so objectionable to the rail- road strikers, called loudly for the ser- geant of the guard. i Sergeant Harvey, the non-commissioned officer in charge of the detail, responded, but as the reports were heard a consider- able distance away from the cemetery he did not investigate, and when questioned by Colonel Graham next morning he failed to convince that strict officer that he had exercised all due diligence in endeav- oring to arrest the shooters, or that a force of strikers had not been makinga night attack with dynamite upon the “‘murdered monument.” The result was that when Sergeant Harvey reported off duty he immediately reported under arrest. e is confined to his quarters pending an official investization ot his conduet. 1t is safe to say that the commander will hardly be placated by any explanation his subordinate can make, and the non-com- missioned ofticer;will probably see his chey- rons take wings and‘fly away. ~‘Colonel Graham is determined that that ‘murdered by strikers’ monument shall not be surprised by a night attack,” said an_artilleryman, “‘even if Fort Point, Lime Point, Alcatraz and every post in the division fall into the hands of the enemy, “The shots are believed to have been fired by some person in the graders’ camp down on the beach, but that did not satisfy the colonel. Anyhow the disturbance has given us trouble because we have to patrol the hills every night now to see that no trespassers are lurking around.” While the sentries were listening for more shots from the (direction the of cemetery a burglar was making himself familiar with plans and specifications of the of- ficers' quarters. How he escaped the vigi- Iance of the nightly guard is another sub- ject for investigation, but his presence was manifested by several rifled apartments next morning. One of his visits was to the residence of Forage Sergeant August Nagel. Trunks were broken open, their contents scattered around and $50 taken. The burglar next tried Colonel Graham’s quarters, but he missed his way and stumbled over the Chinese cook, whose yells of terror frightened the housebreaker clear off the Teservation. I Dockery Continues His Work. Milk Inspector Dockery thought to give the dairymen who nightly come up the San Bruno road another surprise yesterday morning. Whether the dairymen anticipated another immediate raid or have wisely determined to sell only pure milk, is not known; but only one wagon out of forty examined fell below the: standard. This proved to be Fassler’s doubie-decker Del Monte Dairy wagon, having on board something over 300 gallons 6f milk, The entire load was dumped, the test standing as follows: Butter fat, 2 4-5 per cent; cream, about 6 per cent; specific gravity, 10.22. Stanislaus Regli, on a complaint sworn to by Inspector Dockery, charging him with offering for sale impure milk, was arrested yesterday, He put up $50 cash bond for his appearance before Judge Low. A PROMINENT RANCHMAN. From the Colorado Farmer, Denver, Colo. David S. Green, who is past middle life, & man of fine physique, strong, vigorous and buoyant, went to Colorado in 1860 and now resides at 2127 Grant avenue, Denver. i well known in Colorado and Indian Territory as a cattleman, and is also known_in Colorado mining circles by “old-timers.” He is a mem« ber of Trinity M. E. Church of this city and well known in Methodist circles and & familiar figure on the streets of Denver. He is a gentles man of lnlelllfieuca and culture, communie cative and affable. On the first day of February, 1893, Mr. Green received a serious injury (o the spine, oc- casioned by slipping while supporting a heavy weight. The injury was very painful and in a few days he was helpless. Through the long months of suffering that followed he was re- duced in strength and flesh until his nervous system was well nigh exhausted. Hoe was brought to the border land of paralysis. His entire right side was threatened with this malady. The spinal column and base of the brain were a battery of pain snd torture, and muim was left him but to suffer on and wait for the end. While in this conaition and uttarly hopeless of belp (as his physician and the best medi: counsel proved powerless) his attention wes Bmvlden(hlly cailed to Dr. Williams’ Pink ills. As a drowning man clutches at straw so he caught at Pink Pills and immediately began to )m%ro\'L He commenced their use about the middle of March last &nd to-day his pains are nearly gone, all_the al\rming symp- toms of paralysis have disappea! and the original injury is rngmly improving. His gen- eral health and flesh are returning, his usual elasticity of spirit and vivacity are restored and an hour’s conversation is sufficient to convince one that to Pink Pills is due a change almost miraculous. In conversation with a representative of the Farmer Mr. Green said: *I'have not been on the street for seventeen months until two or three day ago, but I am so much better. Itisa surprise to mé and my friends, yes, and to my doctor, too. The fact is I have been at death’s door.'No one thought there was any help for me; even my doctor thought I never would be any better! ‘But herelam walking about, as zou see, and to me it is wonderful! and_per- aps {ou will hardly believe me when I tell ou what did it—it was Dr. Williams’ Pink Pills or Pale People.” 1t is due to suffering humanity that the story of Mr. Green be told. His kindness of heart and generous impulses would rejoice in spread- ing the fame of & remedy that has brought him from the valley of death to enjoy.the pleasures of a loving ho His phinlclnn is a gentleman well known in Denver, has lived bere many years and built up & sood practice. He is'broad minded and in good standing in the best medical circles in the city. Any one wishing 10 do so can readily satisfy himself as to the facts herein related. Dr. Williams’ Pink Pills contain all the ele- ments necessary to give new life and ricnness to the blood and restore shattered nerves, Thefi are sold in boxes (never in loose form b the dozen or hundred) at 50 cents a box, or six Doxes for $2 50[. and may be had of all drug. ists or directly by mail from Dr. Willia, giedlctna Company, Schenectady, N. Y. e A