The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, October 30, 1895, Page 8

8 THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, WEDNESDAY, 'OCTOBER 30, 1895 DEUPREY'S APPEAL FOR DURRANT'S LIFE The Senior Counsel Carried Into Court on a Chair. PASTOR GIBSON SCORED. Deuprey Appeals to the Emotions and Sympathies of the Jurors. THE HOWLING MOB OUTSIDE. A Dramatic Scene in Court and a Dis- graceful Spectacle in the Corridors. THE DURRANT TRIAL IN A MINUTE—-MR. S APPEAL joned appeal to the odore Durrant, charged e Lamo and attaches v before they sation of the on of the corridors, olice and Sheriff’s men just . J r Seiber- , and Judge y the mob that head with disgraceful scene to court in a he afte , and without ris- iramatic and emotional ap- siming that he on trial for the crime 1ing sessio: ion of Mr. Di T was occupied by the nson’s argument for ng Mr. Barnes will begin t fo cople. e THE MOB OUTSIDE. Judge Murphy Forced to Fight His Way Into the Courtroom—A Disgraceful Spectacle. aired Judge of the Superior sed in the heart of a desperate mob of men and women fighting, yelling, and using his big notebook on is nearest him—that was the spec- tacle presented in the corridor leading to Judge Murphy’s courtroom yesterday | afterno | Why should a dignified Judge act in this manner? The truth is he was not dignified just at this moment; he was angry, and right- ghting his way into The mob was a in it was intent It was the sensation of the day, and as great a sensation as there has been since this trial of sen: ns began. iffs and deputy Sheriffs shoute: Keep back there! there! TLet Judge M The mob pressed all the closer, each one expecting to be able to slip in when the door should open for his Honor. Soon the court was in the midst of the mob, which was thickest and fiercest in front of the door. His coat was almost torn from his back. His hat was battered down over his e; arranged, his collar and cra sweat pouring down his judicial brow, an- ger flashing in his eyes, threats to the crowd, entrea to the bailiffs came from his lips, and fi came only a man. arphy pass!” He lifted high his big effectivel e beadsaround him. ageous, disgraceful scene. y is almost criminally to blame Such a spectac ed before in a civilized community. It must remain asa blot upon San Fran- cisco’s judicial fame unless an investiga- t10n can be held and those responsible for 1t punished. heaped upon Judge Murphy yesterday afternoon while seeking admission to his own court in pursnance of a most solemn and important duty are a shame upon the City government, or upon that branch of it whose negligence permitted the disgrace- fuloccurrence. And not only the gray-haired, dignified Judee of the court himself was compelled to submit to these indignities and humili- -ations, but every oflicer and attache of the court, every pe: indeed, whether man > duty demanded their presence in court received the same treat- ment. In their bewilderment, their blind help- lessness, the bailiffs and deputy Sheriffs and policemen themselves added not a lit- tle to the wild scene of disorder, for every one of them, intent upon crowding some favorite of their own into the courtroom, seemed unable to distinguish between those entitled to admission and those merely bent on geiting in to gratify their lust of sensationalism. Jurors, attorneys, newspaper men and women were handled as roughly by the limbs of the law as were the others, and in that wild, seething mob it was only those of superior qualities of persistence that finally gained admission. At one end of the corridora rope had been stretched from wall to wall, but the mob pressed up against it so fiercely and in such numbers that those appointed to guard it were overpowered and overriden. Juror Sieberlich made a brave effort to get past this rope. It caught him back of the neck in some way and almost strangled him. He finally came into court, with big red marks of the rope on his neck and burning with indignation. He took his seat in the box and tried to cool nis flesh and his ire. Judge Murphy was engaged in the same occupation. It was an unpropitious moment, but Mr. Sieberlich did not realize this. Whensoma degree of quiet was secured in the room he rose and addressed the court. “1f your Honor please,” he said, “I want to give notice that I shall not come into this courtroom again unless I can walk in as 2 gentleman.”’ Once before Juror Smyth made a similar statement to the court, upon less provo- cation withal, and yet with much better success. Judge Murphy at that time held that Smyth’s indignation was righteous and scored the deputy Sheriffs roundly for their negligence. But yesterday the Judge himself had just passed through the ordeal and was smarting still with the sting of it. 1 don’t see what call there is for sach a tement, Mr. Sieberlich,” said the court. “I was nearly strangled to death out there in the corridor,” retorted the juror, upon t It was an o Somebod for it. | sufficient ing into the Durrant | Keep back | His clothes were dis- | at awry, the | ally the honored Judge be- | | rical, appeal of Mr. Deuprey. black notebook and began to bammer it | has never been | Such indignities as were | | “and I want to state thatI shall never come in here again until I can come in as a gentleman and not as a rowdy.” “Very well, then,” said the court, ‘‘we will see that you are kept here.” Then to the counsel: ‘Proceed with the case, gentlemen.” But that was impossible for a few moments. The mob outside made such a noise that it could be distinctly heard within, and every time the door opened to | admit some one, a great babel of shouts and exclamations floated into the court- | room and drowned all other sounds. At the close of the afternoon session Judge Murphy had so far subdued his personal indignation in the matter that he felt it safe to administer the proper re- buke to the deputy Sheriffs. “To-day the proceedings outside this court have been simply disgraceful. A mob took possession of the corridor and made it necessary for those whose duty call them here to fight their way in. 'This must not be repeated. I desire the Sheriff to call upon the Police Department for a force to keep the corri- dors clear and a passageway open. It is an outrage that the jurors should be subjected to such treatment as | they received to-day—I say nothing about my own experiences, which were disagree- able and exciting enough while they lasted.” But Judge Murphy felt a iot more than he said from the bench. courtroom still smarting under his treat- ment at the hands of the mob, and ex- pressing indignation to his colleagues and the officers of the court. The remarkable thing about the occur- rence is that no lives were lost, and that no serious casualties happened. Perhaps two-thirds of the crowd were women. Had one of these fainted and fallen she must have been trampled to death in the wild disorder and excitement that prevailed. It wasdoubtless the fact that Mr. Deuprey was down on the bills for a speech in the | afternoon that drew the great crowd and | made it so feroci us and overpowering. Inside the courtroom was crowded as it never was before, and the bailiffs and Deputy Sheriffs permitted the spectators 0 came early to steal the chairs from the reporters’ table and from wherever they could be obtained. Half a dozen newspaper men and women, who are regu- larly employed on the trial, were com- pelied to stand up durinz the entire pro- ceedings, while friends of the bailiffs and Deputy Sheriffs, who had only an idle curiosity to gratify by being present, sat { comfortably by and gaped and hungered for the sensation that did not come. Indeed, the sensation of yesterday’s ses- sion of the trial occurred outside the court- room. It wasa sensation, too, of which all San Francisco should feel abashed, and one that would speak but to the East- ern or foreign visitor to these shores of the dignity of California’s Superior Court and county government. —_—e THE DAY IN COURT. Deuprey Carrled In From a Sick- bed to Plead for Durrant. Dickinson Concludes. Attorney Eugene N. Deuprey, pale and wan of face, shrunken and weak of frame, was carried into court yesterday to play his part in the last act of the trial of Theo- dore Durrant for one of the most fiendish, most pititul crimes of the century. ‘Well he played his part, sitting there in his cushioned chair, pillows all about him, face to face with the jurors, calling to his purpose all his skill in forensic speaking, all his foree of pathos and dramatic art. Women wept and men were serious. In his peroration his own voice grew thick, his lips trembled and there was moisture in his eyes. Mr. Deuprey played well his part. New all that can be done for Theo- dore Durrant has been done. He has had the testimony of many witnesses, the calm, deliberative, analytic argument of Mr. Dickinson, the impassioned, almost theat- Now there remains only the closing argument of Mr. | Barnes for the State, the instructions of the court—then the verdict. Yesterday belonged to the defense (and the mob outside and inside the courtroom). Mr. Dickinson resumed his argument in the morning. There should have been a more exhaustive search of the belfry made at the time the body was discovered, he began. Then the real culprit might have been discoverea—not hidden in the beliry, but by the further evidences and clews that might have been then unearthed. Mr. Dickinson was warmed up to his subject rather more than on Friday. He had even some euphonious phrases to de- liver now and then. He spoke of the wit- ness Phillips as “the man of peculiar mien and peculiar manner.”’ He reverted, almost poetically, to Miss Cunningham, as “the snake coiled up in the sunshine of sympathy luring her vic- tim to his death,” though if Durrant be innocent it is difficult to see how this mild- faced little woman under the big hat could harm him. Oppenheim was “a very swift and a very willing witness,” and a chain was “no stronger than its weakest link.” Mr. Dickinson was ingenious, too. The wit- ness Phillips had meant to convey the impression that his Victoria Hotel was unquestionably of good repute because no women were aliowed on the premises. This seemed convincing at the time, for the statement was uncontradicted. But hear this clever lawyer's version—‘“that keeper of a hotel where no ladies were ad- mitted!” Then he went to the struggle in the bel- fry, arguing that one man alone could not have killed the girl and showing why. Mrs. Noble hid her face in her handker- chief, and Maud Lamont, in the far corner of the room, wept unabashed. Even the lady in olive green who sits beside Mrs, Durrant could not witness the mental pic- ture unmoved. And so the morning session wore on. It ‘was not a long one, and when Mr, Dickin- son had finished Mr. Barnes bespoke an early noon adjournment, promising that Mr. Deuprey would positively appear in the afternoon. \ The latter’s speech was brief, lasting not quite an hour and a half, and to the au- dience, at least, it was effective and enter- taining. He spoke in a clear, strong voice —save when the pathos of the words de- manded the Jower pitch. Sometimes his words were measured and solemn, again they rose to the heights of dramatic declamation, now they pleaded, sometimes they 'argued. Mr. Deuprey would haye made a good actor. He did not make all the points made by Mr. Dickinson, but he scored one against Pastor Gibson that his colleague bad either neglected or purposely withheld. “You saw the manner in which he equivocated when on the stand. Lord i0d! What a witness would he have made in his own behalf!” It was of Pastor Gibson that the lawyer spoke, having previous'y pointed out that the reverend gentleman might very easily 7. He left the | A EUGENE DEUPREY 33 PLEADING FOR DURRANT'S LIFE. “Think of the mother who believes in her boy, who has sat by him day and night. Say, by your ver- dict, to this broken-hearted father, crushed by the wrong that the law has done to him and his, that his son is “ Not Guilty!’” [Sketched in court by a “Call” artist.] have stood in Durrant’s shoes in this trial, yet heaven forbid that Mr. Deuprey should accuse him! tions (only insinuations). Two other points the sick and learned counsel made that were not made by his colleague. He cited a case of mistaken circumstantial evidence; then one of mis- taken identity—the latter where a wife had mistaken another for her own husband. From these he argued the gen- eral unreliability of circumstantial evi- dence and the danger of such identifica- tion as that given by Mrs. Vogel, who “never saw that young man any more than she obtained green cheese from the moon.”’, Came then the peroration and the tears. Only Durrant’s eyes—of those around him —were dry. The voice alone moved women, though not in sympathy with the words, to shed tears, as the sick man, si ting bolt upright in his invalid’s chair, his shrunken hand raised to heaven, told of the mother’s love for her boy and the | father’s broken heart at this foul injustice heaped on the head of this Christian young man—or words to that effect. That was all. at the District Attorney. And now it was Mr. Dickinson’s turn to play the graceful | part and ask that Mr. Barnes be permitted to forego his opening to the jury until this morning. Then came the scolding to the Sheriff for the disgraceful scenes in the corridor —a scolding not half severe enough, and probably less severe because the court felt himself a party to the issue. Then adjournment, Dr. Stevens stepping forward and feeling the sick man’s pulse, then the sick man carried from the court- room in his pillowed chair. B S DICKINSON’S PERORATION. It Took Two Men to Perpetrate the Ghastly Crime In the Em- manuel Beslfry. With even fewer preparatory remarks than he employed upon the opening of his speech Mr. Dickinson went at once to his task yesterday morning when court con- vened, taking up the thread of his argu- ment where he had stopped Friday after- noon: . May it please the court and gentlemen of the jury, I consider it a particularly unfortunate thing in this case that there was not at the time of the discovery of the body of the de. ceased a search made of the belfry, for I be. lieve that euch search would have thrown light upon the crime. It wonld have furnished some clew, which, if it had been followed up, would have led to'the detection of the criminai in the case. The testimony shows that upon the discovery of the body an officer was left at the beliry-door to prevent any one going up prior to the arrival of the Coroner’s deputies. The Coroner’s deputies arrived and took the body away. eponderance of evidence as to footprints tn the beifry. In the meantime, no examination whatever had been made of these premises. After the body was taken &way, the belfry was open to whomsoever desired to go into it. There is some difference in the testimony as to whether Ioolgrlnu were discovered in the belfry or not, but 1 submit the preponderance of testimony is in favor of the proposition that there were, Why was not some examination made to see whether there were or not? No search was made even for the clothes of the deceased until after numbers of Ele had been allowed to wander through the beliry at their own sweet will. Permit me to call your attention to the importance of the investigation which should have been made of every nook and corner. don’t believe that the deceased was ever killed in the beliry. The evidence as 1 read it and the inferences I draw indicate that she was not. Blanche Lamont was not mur- dered in the belfry.) The evidence is uncontradicted that there were marks in the dust as from the dragging of the body. 1do not say this for the purpose of casting “any reflection upon the deceased, but merely as showing the lack of diligence in ierreting out the criminal in this cace. I sad- mit the guilty will never be detected, will - He made no accusa- | | | | with whom he com The court looked askance | never be caught or punished; but in response to public opinion, some oné will come under the ban of suspicion, somebody will be called | | pon to clear himself of the suspicions which | | have been cast upon him. I will now take up | Mr. Quinlan for a few moments. When you | come to consider the circumstances detailed | by Mr. Quinlan, the condition he must neces have been in on the day when he re- | called the appearance of the defendant, when you consider the circumstances under which | he gave forth his information, 1t is certainly extremely strange. Here is a man who bad never known defendant. | i | Quinlan may desire notoriety | or the friendship of the police. | .\'othinF attracted his attention to him ex- | cept the fact that the gentleman was walking on the inner side of the walk. Now, thatisa very simple circumstance on which to identify | absoluteiy the appearance of the young man. | Isubmit ‘that he is entirely mistaken in_the premises. As to his character that has been impeached, and most successfully. It may be that Mr. Quinlan desires notoriety, or that he desires to fayor the police and detective forces, in contact in his capacity asa Police Court lawyer. Ican see no other reason for his coming forward. I will now take up Mr. Oppenhe 1 submit that in him we have a very swift and very willing wit- ness. His memory is better now than when he testified at the preliminary exsmination, We have his testimony in which he is perfectly positive not only as to the identification of the defendant, but s to his clothing and as to the time of day and almost as to the day itself, Wy should Durrant want to pawn the rings ¢ The positiveness with which he gives his tes- timony, I submit, subjects it to criticism. I say that his tale does not bear the impress of truth upon its face. He has educated himself up to the belief that this was the man and this was the ring. If the defendant had been guilty of the murder of this unfortunate young Indy he would not have been under the neces- sity of pawning the rings. He had his bank account to which he could have gone for money. I submit that he would not do so from fear of detection. In Mr. Oppenheim’s business it is quite necessary that he should be friendly with the Police Department, and I submit that the circumstances and surround- ings, the facts which appear and the logical decductions which may be drawn from them absolutely contradict his story. Mr. Phillips a man of peculiar mien and memory. As to Mr. Phillips, here is another man of peculiar mien and peculiar memory. He did not feel at all pleasant when he ‘was called back here the other day to_ tell about his lodging-house in Victoria. Regarding Miss Cunningham I have but little tosay. I am willing that she should be condemned out of her own mouth, and I think that she is, with the flowers that she sent him, and the food that she desired to send him, and the p?;en that she sent him, and her hours of talk from the 18th of August to the 8th of October. She haseaid that she agreed with defendant that she would not publish anything without his rmission. Undoubtedly there was some ob- ect or some motive in this. She wasa salaried reporter of the Chronicle. Her information gained naturally and necessarily was the prop- erty of the Chronicle. Miss Cunningham showed @ very fine distinction. Now, if the matter in regard to a sealed en- velope' containing a communication be true, why did she not report it to the oflicers at once 5o that defendant’s cell could be searched and the communication discovered? The Court—General, was not that ruled out? Mr. Dickinson—Refarence, 1 believe, was mede to it. An address wason the envelope. The Court—sut it was ruled out on your own objection and it is hardly proper now. 'his young lady, continued Mr. Dickinson, was on the witness-stand, and acting under in- structlons refused to_answer questions which were put to her. The reason given was that she had taken an oath not to divulge it, and she would not do it. She comes before us now having taken a similar oath, with this excep- tion, that she was not_to gubush anything without his consent. I submit that this is showing a very fine distinction. “A snake coiled up in the sun- 8hine of sympathy.” I will set her down here, in her own hu- miliation, convicted as she is of treachery and deceit. She is, in form and appearance at least, & woman, and is therefore uPe from my further criticism, but by her own admission she was a snake coiled upin the sunshine of -ym{;:thy, luring her vicim to death. Her sto dis” connected and inherentl mony is wholly and absolutely circumstantial after the body of the deceased was found. As we review it we observe that there are links upon links. The law, as I understand it, says that the chain must be complete. It is a'well- known physical fact that a chain isno stronger than its weakest part. one link belacking the chain is in two pieces, and it is no longer a chain. I desire to call your attention par- ticularly to this proposition. “It took two men to accomplish the deed.” We have now got through with the rollcall and all these witnesses as to identification and we come to the gate of the church. From that time all is inference, conjecture and deduc- tion. I submit that this unfortunate young woman was never killed by one man. It took tWo 1o accomplish the deed. Notonly this, but it took more than one man to carry the body up into the belfry, to disrobe it and to scatter the clothing round the church as the testi- mony shows it was. Itwould have been a hysical impossibility for one man alone to ane done it. In conclusion, I desire again to call your attention to the rollcall, which is, in my judgment, the pivotal point in this case. In leaving this case whh({ou 1 ask you to con- sider caretully the good character of the defendant, which stands before you unim- peached except by the suspicion which this testimony has thrown upon him. Durrant’s conduct has been natural throughout all. There is no particle of evidence to skow that st any time moment. His natural throughout this entire trial, and since he was arrested. What motive could he have for doing such an get? What motive for wreck- ing his life, his home and his future? None has been shown, none has been disclosed, none can be produced from this testimony or de. duced from it in any way. There is nomalice shown which i necessary to constitute the crime of murder, unless there be some evidence showing a degraded or abandoned heart. The young man who was helping himself along in life, getting up at 3 o'clock in the morning, the'young man who enjoys the good opinion of those who have known him for years, of those who have taught him in schooi—this is an element of great and vital importance when You come to consider the probabliities and pos- sibilities of whether the defendant could have done this or not. Do by him as you would wish 10 be done by.” I ask you carefully to consider all these matters. Do by him as you would wish to be done by, or to have yours done by under similar circumstances. Be careful not to be swayed by public opinion or public prints, Let the case be decided on the evidence which has been presented and we will be satisfied with the result, no matter which way it may turn. We velieve that we are right, we believe that we are innocent, and we believe that the prosecution has failed absolutely and_entirely to prove its case. We have madeour fl;m, and now we leave the matter in your hands, confi- dent ¥0n will do that which'is right and that it will lead to the restoration of this defendant 1o his family, to his pursuits, and again open the future to him, bright and rosy as it was when these suspicions fell upon him. T DEUPREY’S APPEAL. “Think of the Mother Who Bellev: in Her Boy and Say That He Is Not a Monster.” Mr. Deuprey was too weak to leave his chair. Hesatat the prosecution’s table, facing the jury, with cushions all about him. When the proceedings began in the afternoon Mr. Barnesasked the indulgence of the court for Mr. Deuprey not rising to e chenged his character fora | conduct has been entirely | speak, and that he might be privileged to make nis address while seated. Mr. Deuprey began then: May it please the court and gentlemen of the jury: There are great and lm?orum issues in- volved in this case. There isin this case a life atstake. Itisin your hands to passa verdict as the judges of the fact whether this young man Durrant shall live or die. Itis nota mat- ter of idle moment. It is a matter of the most serious concern. We claim on the part of the defense that in the name of the law an awful wrong has been done this defendant and his family. Only two facts proved by the prosecution. You have been brought here, gentlemen of the jury, to say whether or not the proof is sufficient to justify the finding of a verdict of gullty on such proof as has been offered by the prosecution, and I submit 10 you from all that you have heard from the witnesses who have testified on behali of the genple in this case that they have established by evidence such as you can receive but two ‘Brogoumonl, namely, that on the morning of the 3d of April, 1395, Blanche Lamont met W. H. T. Durrant, they rode on the Mission-street car, transferred to Polk street and then to Sutter street. She went to the High School and he to the Cooper Medi- cal Colle The other fact that they have es- tablished is that after 5 that afternoon W. H. T, Durrant appeared between the folding-doors oi the Sunday-school rooms of the Emmanuel Baptist Church, where George R. King was playing the piano, and therestated that he was overcome by the gas. What other fact have they established in this case? They asserted to you that they would show that the young man urrant was seen on the corner of Clay and Powell streets on the afternoon of April 3. Mrs. Vogel capable of receiv- 1ing strong impressions. They promised to establish by three school- mates of Blanche Lamont that one of them entered the car at the same time as they entered and the other two saw her sitting with & young man, who they say is Durrant, as_the car was going south down Powell street. Now, let us take that position where we left the nature of the proof that you are called upon to believe. Mrs. Vogel—you have had an oppor- tunity of observing her—an excitable German woman, who would be capable of receiving strong impressions. She tells you her story. At one time, in her rambling, rushing and gratuitous manner of saying things, she said that she saw this young man walking up and down for two hours. Then that it was seven minutes past 2 when he was walking up and down there. How did she know that it was W. H. T. Durrant when she came from the witness stand and in a dramatic manner pointed out the defendant in this case? Do you remember how she stated that she did not read the papers? And do you also remember her husband’s statement? She told you how this young man was dressed that aiternoon. She had come to the courtroom during the obtaining of the jury and saw him attired as he is now attired. Mrs. Vogel and the green cheese From the moon. The fact in this case, undenied by any testi- mony shown, is that this young man wore a sack suit, all of the same material. Mrs. Vogel never saw that man any more than that she ob- tained green cheese from the moon. From her own reading of the newspapers and the talks with her husband she hascome to the court- room and has jumped the fence and found a young man theére with a cutaway coat and light hat,and from that she has got her de- scription. Take the young ladies. They never saw Durrant in their lives. When they were taken to identify this man, however, they knew the man they were going to seek. They knew also the object of the search. They had seen published in the papers his portrait, ac- companied by sensational articles which haye been published from the 13th of April until the present time,and they were taken to see the man whose portrait was published in the papers. AU the identification witnesses are mistaken, Does it not, as intelligent men, make you blush to believe that in an intelligent com- munity when a man is charged with the crime of murder he should be brought forth in the manner that has been testified lo,vh‘tunllx saying to those parties, “That is the man. Now, gentlemen of the jury, can you believe that'these girls' testimony is worthy of belief to such® degree that you would poss,upon whether this man is guilty or not? 1donot say anvthing against these ladies. I simply say that they are mistaken. Mr. Durrant tells you, and he is corroborated, that he was at the Cooper Medical College at the noon recess, and that at 1 o’clock he went out with Rossto Broadway down Webster street. Ross and Carter hoth remember the circumstance, the meeting and what was said upon the occasion, and Carter tells you that when he got back o the college, he said he might have stayed with them. Durrant went up to the library or study and went to work on his thesis. “Weverified Dr. Cheney's roll man by man.” He spoke to Diggins about his catarrh, say- ing that he, Diggins, could find a remedy at Joy's drugstore which would assist him. Dig- gins remembers the circumstance, and_that it was the first week in April. On the part of the defense, when we opened this case, we asserted to you that W. H. T. Durrant, between 3:30 and 4:15 of April 3, 1895, was at Dr. Cheney’s class; that Dr. Cheney knew his roll was cor- rect and would say so, and that he believed this young man was there. Dr. Cheney testi- fied fo the fact that his roll wes correct. He gave sou his reasons for so doing. Not only that believe that he was present?” Objection. The evidence was cut out, but we came forward with stronger proof. We verified the roll man by man. We showed you distinetly that this young man, Durrant, did not have hisname answered to by any other person. Durrant did not copy his notes from Glaser. Who was present on that day? Durrant tells you he was there, that he answered to his name, and he is entitled to belief upon the subject. Mr. Deuprey here made some reference to the parallel already exhibited between the notes of Dr. Cheney’s lecture as shown by Durrant’s notes and those of Student Glaser. He laid particular emphasis upon the different spelling of one of the cited authorities, one of the students writing it “Roch’” and the other ‘‘Roache.” This, in Mr. Deuprey’s opinion, constituted a good reason for supposing that Durrant had not copied his notes from Glaser. Con- tinuing, Mr. Deuprey said: Now, as to Mrs. Crosett. Dear old lady, with her 71'years. She saw somebody whom she thought looked like Durrant on the dummy of the car, talking to a young lady. Is testimony of thaf character, no matter how respectable the old lady be, sufficient to prove that that young man was on the car? Mrs. Leak's testimony not to be credited. Mrs. Leak tells us that ghe was at her win- dow fronting the church. She sawa young man and a young woman; she thought it was either Blanche Lamont or Lucille Turner. If Mrs. Leak’s eyesight is so keen as to mistake Lucille Turner for Blanche Lamont,Ido not think we can have very much faith in sugges- tions or suppositions of Mrs. Leak upon the subject of appearance and size. Mrs. Leak says that Durrant called at her house several times, and that every time she had to ask him his name. You will notice that for months none of these witnesses disclosed anything in regard to these occurrences; neither Mrs. Cros- ett nor Mrs. Leak did so. For months Mrs. Leak does not state it asa supposition, but at last she does state it &s & supposition, and as a supposition only. And can_you believe that ‘when this poor lady, Mrs. Noble, was weeping for her beloved niece and Mrs. Leak had in- formation of this kind, that knowing Mrs. Noble, she should not have said, “I have a supposition in regard to this matter.” Can you account for it on any ground but that this good woman was mistaken? Quinlan’s character weighed and jound wanting. You have absolutely to disbelieve Mrs. Vogel and the four young women, or you have to ac- cept Mrs. Crosett, Mrs. Leak, Quinlan and Clarke. You cannot believe Quinlan. His character was put in the balance, and in all the city he could not find a soul to come for- ward and say & good word for him. Is this evi- dence of a character that you can believe for & moment in anywise to pass even upon the lib- erty of this defendant, let alone his life? We claim that we have proved by satisfactory means that Durrant went from the college at 4:10, took the Sutter-street car, changed to Polk, changed again, and arrived atthe church at4:55. He went into the library, took out his pincers, or whatever the small instrument was with which he fixed the burners, and went 0f Interest To Invalids. There is in your heart a deep longing to be strong and healthy again, isn’t there? It is only natural that there should be, and we have a word or two of hope and comfort to give you. Your blood is weak and thin, and it needs enriching at once; your system as a whole needs strengthening, and your nerves want ton- ing up. Dr. Henley’s Celery, Beef and Iron - || was intended to fit just such cases as yours. It will make you well and strong again, for the good it does Lasts, and it has never yet been known to f i asked the question: “Did you verify | your roll from the knowledge of what occurred | on that day, and from your roll, do you not now | i 1y into the belfry. He went to work lwnll:geati:;e gylsbumer. We’ heve never said or claimed that Durrant was asphyxiated by gas. Durrant's actions those of an innocent man. an was overcome, and had the symp- tolnf:s“:;e(mu hyxiation, he would never have come away Trorm the church alive. He fixed the Burners, but felt sick_from the effects of the as he had inhaled. Heshut of the gas, and B tisall. If Durrant were & guilty man, be would have gone down immediately to_the library and would have gone out at the front door. * There was no cail for_him to go down %o the Sunday-schociroom, but he heard the sound of the piano, and he knew that it was George King that was playing. He went down there. and as he opened the door he said, “Hello, George,” and then he asked him to get some bromo-seltzer. After that Mr. Durrant helped him to carry down the organ. If Mr. Durrant had been nearly asphyxiated by 285 he could never have done this. He was ittle sick at the stomach, flnd'undur ?fi:di?ré‘fmmnm he ssked to have ‘Ea assistance which was given him, and then he brought down the organ with Ki Durrant need mot have told about the strange man. went to the library, where he put m?gfsyc:y}:‘neznmd hat and they went out at the front door. That isa fair and reasonable stm’,\v B and one that appeals to you as such, and we submit that the connection that they have sought to make between the meeting in the morning and this affair is entirely absen.; From the time that this young man Durran was arrested up to the piesent his imry‘h been the same. What occurred that e}v{en kl’u He took his meal with his mother. e;; en went off to the church for the exercises ther and Durrant asked Mrs. Noble if Miss nm:;x nt liad come to the meeting. He then stated ti ]2 he had a book for her. He then took it to the house. Then sbout the proposition of t strange man who spoke to this defendant At Stockton and Post streets and asked him about Blanche Lamont. Probably, if we could get at the bottom of this matter we might know who the man was. Now if this defendant had been trying to escape by lies he need nothave told you that. “Pastor Gibson might have been placed in Durrant’s position. He had shown himself to be the friend of the Noble family aud to Blanche Lamont. No one more than he is bitterly sorry as her un- timely taking off, and he would indeed be elad if any light were thrown upon the subject. We thus find that so far as the conauct of Mr. Durrant is concerned it is consistent with that of an innocent man. We are met by the prop- osition under these circumstances that you, the gentlemen of the jury, should disbelieve Mr. Durrant. You must bélieve all the suppo- ns and assertions_of these old ladies and voung women. Now I ask what is the testi- mony of Dr. Macdonald, as to what he said upon that subject. You are all familiar with this end how old age might affect them. It was said by me in my opening statement that there were silent witnesses that would cast strong suspicions against others. We made 1o charge of guilt against any one, nor do we do 50 now. But we do say that the Rev. Mr, Gib- son might have been placed in the position of Mr. Durrant, and with the Same energy exe cised against him he would be in a worse po: tion, though I believe Mr. Gibson to be guilt- less ‘and innocent as 1 believe Durrant to be guiltless and innocent. You have had before you the handwriting of Mr. Gibsom. “Durrant tells you he mever wore an overcoat in April We put that before you for & comparison with the writing on those newspapers. It is for you to say whether there is any such identity 2s would cast suspicion upon that gentleman. You heard the manner in which be testified. Lord God! If he did that and he were a wit- NEW TO-DAY. REMEDIES Act almost instantly, speedily curing the most obstinate cases. | Rheumatism cured in from 1 to 3 days.™ Dyspepsia and all stomach troubles quickly relieved, Catarrh positively cured. Headache cured in § minutes. Nervous diseases promptly cured. Kidney troubles, Piles, Neuralgia, Asthma and all Female Complaints quickly cured. Munyon’s Vitalizer imparts new life and vigor to weak and debilitated men. Ask our druggist for a 25-cent vial of one of i{unyon’s Cures, and if you are not bene- fited your money will be refunded. This Corapany putsup ¢ A cure for every disease You may wonder how we can afford to sell a bed that is made of solid oak, richly carved, standing six feet high, with mas- sive pillows, siderails more than a oot wide, cap on footboard three and one-half inches broad, and polished like a mirror, for $13 50. Under ordinary circumstances we could not afford to do it; but we have a number of such beds out of suits where the bureaus have been sold, and to get rid of them we have made these remarkably low prices, which mean so much for you. [4 Nobody buys Lace Curtains from us be- cause they have to. They like to—new patterns. Carpets . Rugs . Mattings CALIFORNIA FURNITURE COr1PANY (N. P. Cole & Co.) 117-123 Geary Street ine Tailoring Perfect Fit g® First-Class Goods, Trimmings and Workmanship, at Moderate Prices, 6o 70 JOE™10HEIM THE TAILOR, 201 - 203 MoxTeomeny Sr., connen Bus, 724 MArKeT ST., 1110-1112 MasKer Sr1., SAN FRANCISCO. COAL! COAL ! Wellington. $10 00 Southfield 950 Genuine Coos Bay. 7 00—Halt ton 3 50 Seattle. + 8 00—Half ton 00 Bryan| B . 800—-Half ton 4 00 Telephone—Black—35. KNICKERBOCKER COAL CO., 522 Howard Street, Near First. RIGGS HOUSE, Washington, D. C. The Hotel ‘ Par Excellence’’ Of the National Capital. First class in all appoint- ments. G. DEWITT, Treas. American plan, $3 per day and upward. Weak Men and Women SHEOULD USE DAMIANA BITTERS, Ti. great’ Mexican Remedy; Health Blrensw @ the Sexual Onmu'. u: