The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-10-04
COULD NOT FIND GIBSON,
A Policeman Seeks in Vain
for the Pastor of En-
manuel Church.
Multitude of Witnesses Called to
Prove the Good Character of
Durrant.

Those who attended the Durrant trial
yesterday afternoon expecting to see the
Rev. J. George Gibson face Mr.. Deuprey
on the witness-stand were disappointed,
for the reason the Deputy Sheriff upon
whom was imposed the duty of serving a
subpoena on Mr.. Gibson was unable to
carry out his instructions. The subpoena
was issued Wednesday, but the deputy
was unable to locate Mr.. Gibson that day,
nor had he found him up to the time he
was wanted in the afternoon yesterday.
The same kind of success was met with
during the rest OF Yesterday and last night
and the pastor of Emmanuel Baptist
Church has not yet been summoned as
witness.
p. N. Lynch, Gibson's secretary, was
seen late last night. He stated that Mr.
Gibson had not been trying to evade the
summons, but that he had been out each
time the deputy called. He stated further
that Mr.. Gibson would go this morning TO
the courtroom, there to be subpenaed if his
presence were desired.
When court convenes this morning the
defense will again change its course and
once more start In on new tack. 1t will
begin The examination of witnesses to
prove the good character of the defendant.
Among those who have been subpenaed
to give the medical student a good name
are Andrew M. and Ainsley G. Davis, pro-
prietors of the Golden Rule Bazaar, for
whom the accused had been accustomed
to work during his vacations. They will
say he was an industrious and faithful
employe/and showed no indication that
he was anything but person possessed of
a marked degree of probity.
Others who will be called by the defense
to testify as to character will be Frank
Dalton DR.. Thrasher, ex-Supervisor G. W.
Taber, P. D. Code and Rev. ]. Cummings
Smith. Besides these a host of friends and
acquaintance of the accused will be called.
For this portion of the defendants case
the prosecution has a rebuttal prepared, in
which all the shortcomings or apparent
mlsdeeds of the accused students life will
be held up to the light of day.
There are three classmates of Durrant
who are not at present in attendance at
Cooper College, and have not therefore
been called to testify as to whether they
answered for him at DR.. Cheney's lecture
April or whether they have any recollec-
ton as to his presence or absence. They
are Students Nourse, Robinson and Smith.
Subpenas have been issued for them, and
as soon as they can be located they will be
examined on the witness-stand.
Captain Lees has had magnified photo
grarh made of DR.. Cheney's original roll
call for April 3, with which to combat the
strong point in the evidence of the case for
the defense which the rollcall as admitted
by the court furnishes.
In that rollcall the aDsentees are marked
with an "a" opposite their names. 1t will
be remembered that the original rollcall
was taken, the, column ruled for March 81
being used, and later transferred to a
sheet ruled for April and the marks in the
column for March 81 erased.
The magnifying photograph shows the
erasure to have been very imperfectly done
and that sign which looks very much
like the letter had been written in that
March 81 column opposite Durrant's name.
It is quite plain that the sign, the faint
outlines of which now appear, was origin
ally letter a, but the prosecution may not
profit as much by the fact as it anticipates,
for it will also be remembered that along
the line of the March 81 column DR.. Gray
testified he had written ''See April 81
and then erased it like the other marks in
the column. Therefore, when the prosecu-
ton presents its photograph the defense
will raise a very nice point should it be
admitted the sign opposite Durrant's
anne is the letter "a'' 1t will hold that
the letter "an is the first letter of the
word April, the place the smudged letter
would come in the ''See April 81 Cap
tain Lees photograph will, therefore, be
likely to be productive of very compli-
Gated argument should the prosecution de-
sire to offer it as evidence