The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-10-02
BUILDING AN ALIBI
The Defense Trying to Impsach Op-
psnheim's Testimony.
AT THAT COLLEGE AGAIN
A Juror Was Approached by a Y.
M. C. A. Man-The Judge In a
Predlcament for a Mo-
ment-No News.
At THAT COLLEGE AGAIN

lett over from last week, the uelenSe
In the Durrant case this morning be-
gan the building OF an alibi for the
young medical student from April to
April IL inclusive. The purpose of the
abb Is to impeach the testimony of
Pawnbroker oppenheim and w. J. Phil
lips. who testified that on April IL Dur
rant tried to pawn Blanche Lamont's
ring at Oppenheim's store. During the
course of the testimony. which covered
Durrant's movements on April 4 and 5,
struggle was precipitated by District
Attorney Barnes. who again chal-
lenged the reliability of a roll call book
at the Cooper college. The argument
ended in victory for the defense so
far as the question before the court
was concerned. as Judge Murphy sus-
tained an objection to question pro-
pounded by himself to the witness and
cut Off the discussion.
The trial began this morning with a
sensation which was quite unexpected
to the prosecution as to the defense
Juror !. j. Truman informed the court
that last Thursday. during the noon
recess of the court. he was approached
by II. ]. Mccoy. general secretary of
the Young Mems Christian association.
who endeavored to engage him In con-
versation on the subject of the trial.
IF you don't hang Durrant." said Nc
Coy to the Juror, 1--WE will hang you"
The court said the offense bordered
strongly on crime and cited Mccoy
to appear in court at noon on Oct. 8
and show cause why he should not be
punished for contempt.
r. w. Maitland. the electrician, who
testified last week with regard to the
construction Of the sun burners in
Emanuel church, was the first witnes1
called. The testimony was Of the Same
nature as that given last week and
was intended to show the liability OF
the escape Of gas under certain condi-
| tions.
The assault on Pawnbroker Open
helms testimony then began. The de-
fense called to the stand four witnesses
by whom It was proposed to test the
accuracy Of the pawnbroker's memory.
Martin Curtis. William Cathcart, p. ].
Neumann and Leonard Everett. MEM
bers of the National Guard and the
signal corps to which Durrant be.
longed. testified that they had taken
various articles Of jewelry to Open
helms store and attempted to pawn
them. They described the manner in
which they were dressed at the time.
The descriptions In many instances did
not correspond with the descriptions
given by Oppenheim when he was
asked to tell how the men who tried to
pawn the articles were dressed.
The next step was to impeach the
testimony of David Clark. the witness
who assited District Attorney Quinlan
to fix the date upon which he saw Dur
rant and Blanche Lamont walking to-
| wards Emanuel church. John Patten,
Patrick Mulvaney and NJ. L. Murph,
said that Clark's reputation for truth
and integrity was bad. On cross-exam-
ination. Mulvaney and Murphy said
they were prejudlced against Clark
from the fact that they had had busi-
ness difficulties with his father. The
district attorney asked that the testi.
mony be stricken out, but the motion
was denied by the court.
| The building of Durrants alibi in
contradiction Of the charge made by
Pawnbroker Oppenheim was begun
with the testimony of DR.. A. w. Hal
halt, lecturer at Cooper Medical Col
lege. Asked IL Durrant was present at
the lecture given on the morning OF
April 4. the doctor referred to the call
book and said that the defendant was
recorded as present. On cross-exami-
nation the doctor said he had no per-
sonal knowledg of Durrants presence
or absence. The defense tried to off
set this by asking II he could give the
name Of any one of the 81 students in
the class who attended the lecture on
the morning In question. The doctor
recalled the names of dozen students
and said he believed he could remem-
ber more II he were given time to
think the matter over.
| The prosecution next attacked the
reliability of the roll call. Before the
district attorney had hardly reached
the point of the subject. however. Judge
Murphy took a hand in the examina-
ton. He asked the witness whether
| In his experience as instructor at the
| college he had known of instances
where students had answered at roll
call for other students who were not
present. The defense at once interpos.
ed an objection and the court was plac.
ed in the predicament OF having to rule
on its own question. The judge said
that while he might permit the question
to be answered II II should come from
proper source. he would sustain the
| objection. Then District Attorney
Barnes asked the same question and
the defense interposed another objec'
tlon. Attorney Dickinson argued that
while It was possible TO call into court
every student who attended the lecture
and ask each one IL he answered at rol
call for Durrant. 1t would be unfair Il
cast suspicion on the particular rol
call In question by any practice or Gus
tom that might have obtained al an
other time. The court said that Il be
lieved the question proper and the evi
dence sought competent. but for thC
sake OF safety he sustained the objec.
ton. With Durrant's whereabouts OF
the morning of April accounted for