The Dickinson press., 1895-10-12

San Francisco, Oct. 1O.-After wan
dering through mass Of unimportant
witnesses the defense in the Durrant
case to-day summoned to the stand
two of the most important witnesses
that have been called since the prose-
cution closed it's case. One Of the wit
nesses materially aided the defense,
from the fact that upon cross-examinn-
tion he failed to give important testi-
mony expected by the prosecution.
The examination Of the other wit
nesses had only just begun when the
court took a recess until tomorrow
morning, but in the short time the
witness was on the stand he testified
to one important fact. which was d.
rectly opposed to what the defense
had hoped to establish.
The most important witness of the
day was Charles A. Lenahan, the
tends was mistaken for Durrant by
Pawnbroker Oppenheim. Lenahan,
who does not bear q striking resem-
blance to the prisoner, said that on
April 3 he attempted to pawn a small
diamond ring. similar to the one worn
by Blanche Lamont. at Oppenheim's
shop. The witness said that he asked
Oppenheim the same questions and
received the same answers that OPP
penheim quoted in relating the conver-
sation he had with the young man
whom Oppenheim testified was Dur
rant. Then came the surprise to the
defense. which counteracted nearly all
the strength gained from the witness
testimony. Lenahan said lie tried to
pawn the ring In the afternoon, while
Oppenheim testified that Durrant en-
tered his shop in the Morning. At
tOrney Deuprey was considerably &C dis
concerted by the statement of the wit
ness and endeavored to impeach Len
ahan's testimony by reading letter
written by Lenahan to the attorneys
for the defense in which he divulged
the fact that he had tried to pawn a
small diamond ring at Oppenheim's
on the same day that Durrant was said
to have entered the place. The court
interrupted Deuprey. however. and re-
fused to let him read only such parts
of the letter us referred to the ques-
tion Mt issue. Deuprey then asked that
the letter he admitted in evidence, and
at the close Of the struggle over this
move court adjourned.
The court refused to admit the whole
letter in evidence. as some passages
were devoted to the expression of the
writer's opinions as to the correctness
Of Oppenleim's testimony. The re-
mafnder Of the letter was admitted.
After Lenahan surprised the defense
l,y stating that he tried to pawn the
ring in the afternoon Attorney Deu-
prey became very suspicious Of the
witness. and asked him several ques-
tions intended to indicate that he had
transferred his sympathies from the
defense to the prosecution. Among
other things Attorney Deuprey asked
Lenallan il lie had not been informed
by persons known to be in sympathy
with the prosecution. Deuprey also
asked him when he had shaved off the
moustache that he wore when he en-
tered Oppenheim's shop. Lenahan
said he had never worn q mustacle in
his life. Deuprey intimated that he
would impcacl the testimony of the
witness on this point by a statement
contained in the letter written by Len
ahan to the attorneys for the de-
fense.
w. A. Dukes, a student at Cooper
give strong testimony for the prosecu-
tIon, gave disappointing testimony.
Dukes said that Durrant asked him II
he could not remember that he at
tended DR.. Cheney's lecture on the at
ternoon Of April 3, and to that end re-
called a number of incidents said to
have taken place at the time. AL
though Dukes seat in the lecture room
was next to Dnrrant's. Dukes could
not remember whether Durrant was
there or not, and told him SO. Dukes
said it was untrue as had been report
ed, that Durrant asked him as a ia
vor that he would testify that Dur
rant attended the lecture. On the con-
trary. Dukes said that Durrant told
him he wished him to testify only to
the facts as he remembered them.