The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-10-02
III. J.. Mccoy Alleged to Have Said to
Durrant We Will Hang You,
EFFORTS TO PROVE AN ALIBI
EVIDENCE INTRODUCED YEsTER-
DAY IN BEHALF OF DuRRANT.
Rev. George j. Gibson Interviewed ON
Attorney Duprey's InsinuatfOns-
The Lawyer Severely Criticised.

the Durrant case this morning began the
building of an alibi for the young medical
student from April I'D to April II. .nclu-
sive. The purpose of the alibi is to impeach
the testimony of pawnbroker Oppenheim
and W. J. Phillips, who testified that on
April II Durrant tried to pawn Blanche
Lamont's ring at Oppenheim's store. Dur
ing the course of the testimony which COW
cred Durrant's movements on April and
) a struggle was precipitated by District
Attorney Barnes, who again challenged
the reliability of a roll call book at Cooper
College. The argument resulted in vic
tory for the defense, so far as the question
before the court was concerned, Judge
Murphy sustained an objection to a ques-
ton propounded by himself to the witness
and cut off the discussion.
The trial began this morning with sem
sation which was quite as unexpected to
the prosecution to the defense. Juror
/. j. Truman informed the court last
Thursday during the recess of the
court he was approached by H. j. Mccoy.
general secretary of the Y. NJ. C. A., who
endeavored to engage him in conversation
on the subject of the trial. IF you don't
hang Durrant." said Mccoy to him, 1--WE
will hang you., The court said the offense
bordered strongly on crime. and cited
Mccoy to appear in court Oct and show
cause. why he should not be punished for
contempt.
r. w. Maitland, the-electrician who testi-
fled last week with regard to the construc-
tion of the sun-burners i'm Emanuel Church.
was the first witness called. The testimony
was of the same nature as that given last
week, and was intended to show the liabili-
ty of gas to escape under certain condi-
tions.
The assault on pawnbroker Oppenheim's
testimony then began. The defense called
TO the stand four witnesses by whom it was
proposed to test the accuracy of the pawn
brokers' memory. Marvin Curtis, William
Calvert, p. j. Numann and Leonard
Everett, members of the National Guard
and the corps to which Durrant belonged,
testified that they had taken various arti-
cles of jewery to Oppenheim's store and
attempted to pawn them. They described
| the manner in which they were dressed at
| the time. The descriptions in many In
| stances did not correspond with the de-
soriptions given by Oppenheim when he
was asked to tell how the men who tried
| to pawn the articles were dressed. Each
of the four witnesses said he had sub
| Durrant. The testimony was made to i'm
! peach the testimony of David Clark. who
assisted attorney Quinlan to fix the date
| on which he saw Durrant and Blanche La
mont walking toward Emanuel Church.
| John Patton, Patrick Mulvany and M. j.
Murphy said that Clark's reputation for
| truth and integrity was bad. On cross-ex-
animation Mulvany and Murphy said they
| were prejudiced against Clark from the
fact that they, had bushes troubles with
| that the testimony be stricken out, but the
motion was denied by the court.
DURRANT AT COLLEGE APRIL 4.
The building of ,Durrants alibi in con-
tradiction Of the charge made by pawn
broker Oppenheim was begun with the tes-
timony of DR.. A. w. Haihalt, lecturer at
Cooper College. Asked If Durrant was pres
i ent at the lecture given On the morning of
April T. the Doctor referred to the call
book and said that the defendant wasNre-
| corded as present. On cross-examnation
he said that he had no personal knowledge
| of Durrant's absence or presence The de-
fense tried TO offset this by asking If he
| one students in the class who attended tn
lecture on the morning in question The
ents and said he believed he could remem-
| ber more If he were given time 10 think the
matter oyer. The prosecution next attacked
district attorney had hardly reached ths
point of the subject, however, Judge Muir
ply took hand in the examination. He
ence as an instructor at the college, he had
| known of instances where students had an
were not present. The defease at once
| interposed an objection and the court was
placed in the predicament of having e
that while he might permit the question tc
be answered. If it should come from a
proper source, he would sustain the OBJ
| lon, for th1 Cart A
torney Barnes asked the same question and
the defense interposed another objection
Attorney Dickinson argled that while /,
was possible TO call into court every student
| who attended the lecture and ask each one
If he had answered at roll call for Durranl
It would oe % unfair to cast suspicion on the
Iice or custom that might have occurred
at another time: The court said that it be-
sought competent, but for the sake OF
safety he sustained the objection
With Durrant's whereabouts on the morn.
attempted to show where the defendant was
the next day. George A. Merrill, an in.
structor at the Lick school of Mechanica
Arts, said that Durrant called on him at Il
o'clock on the forenoon of April 5. wher
asked IL Durrant made known the object
of his call. he replied I'm the affirmative
said
Before the court adjourned attorney Dick.
inson called the attention of the court te
were being received by himself and attor.
ney Duprey, and asked that the Jurors be
instructed to turn such letters over to the
court should they receive any. The judge
received great many letters OF the same
kind.
What the prosecution believes to be testi
mony of the most vital Importance has
been obtained from a student in Cooper
College. For months the prosecution and
defense have la abored TO find some one
among the accused students classmates
who could give some definite Information
regarding the lecture which DR. Cheney de-
livered on the afternoon OF April g. II was
impossible TO find such a student No one
knew definitely that Durrant was there
No one could tell anything which might In.
dicate that Durrant was not there At last
there has been folnd student who car
shed definite light on the subject Charles
A. Dukes, the young man who sat next &c
Durrant in the lecture room will take the
witness stand and swear that after beins
unable to tell whether or not Durrant was
present at the lecture, the accused student
asked him favor to him TO say that he
was there. and that he remembered the
fact. Dukes tells this now only with the
greatest reluctance He says ne drew the
only inference that could reasonably be
drawn from the request. which he could moi
grant For the sake OF his classmate
Dukes decided that he would not speak
He says Durrant wanted him to remember
the fatal day and his presence at the lee
ture without any reference TO the truth oI
4 ----0X ---.