Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-09-30
What the Next Important Witness
Will Testify.
EFFECT OF THE ATTACK ON GIBSON
Failure Of the Attempt to Prove
an AIibi.
LOAN OF A NOTEBOOK

SAN FRANCISCO. September 30.-The at
tack on Rev. George J. Gibson by Attorney
Deuprey in MS opening statement in the
Durrant murder trial has made several pee
pie who testified at the preliminary exam
ination feel anxious lest they. too. should
have the finger Of suspicion pointed at
them. One of these persons is Elmer Wolfe,
who testified that he saw Durrant and Min
rie Williams together after the Christian
Endeavor meeting at DR.. Vogers house.
A few days ago Wolfe received an intima-
tion that he might be drawn into the case
at present being tried III Judge Murphy 5
court. This was a surprise to him. He
rather expected being brought into the Will
liams case, but until the hint was given
him ne was unaware that he might figure
In the Lamont case. He did not, however.
stop to puzzle over the why's and where
fores. but set right to work to establish an
alb. This was easily done, but the young
man was not satisfied. He kept on review
Ing the month of April until ne knew just
where he was and what he did on the night
Minnie Williams met her fate in the library
OF Emanuel Church. Then he went to the
people he had been with on that night, and
secured them witnesses in case an at
tempt should be made to prove his alibi
false. Fortified with a record of this action
on the Sd and on the 18th of April, Wolfe is
the defense may spring
The next important witness who will
give his testimony in the case is Charles
T. Lenahan, who will swear that on the
afternoon OF April Ii he entered the store
OF Adolph Oppenheim and offered to sell
a small diamond ring. The defense ac-
cepts as true the statement made by Op-
penheim that early in April young man
entered his establishment and offered a
ring for sale. Attorney Deuprey made such
an acknowledgment in his opening ad-
dress to the jury. There the concession of
the defendant ends, He then claims that
1t was Lenaha1 and not Durrant who made
the Offer
The prosecution, as a matter of course, is
forced to meet the proposition of the de-
Tense that Lenahan called on Oppenheim
although the contention Is denied. While
OPpenheim declares that Durrant entered
the store and walked Up to him at the
counter. Lenahan claims that Oppenheim
was at the door of his store when he ac-
costed him. Lenahan says he carried an
umbrella that day, but did not take it into
Cppenheim'S store. He says he left 1t with
his friend, Harry Mahoney, who waited
outside.
Young Mahoney does not recoilect wheth-
er Lenahan went into Oppenheim's place
or not. 1t Is the purpose of the prosecution
to attack Lenahan vigorously on the stand.
He has visited pawnshops quite frequently
and, as the records Of the police depart
ment show, has not always been careful to
pawn his own property.
Attorney DupTGy ana DetecCVe Morse
have been busy at Cooper College and have
summoned several students, who are rea-
sonably positive that they saw Durrant at
the college between l and o'clock in the
afternoon If April 3. AS far as it goes
their testimony will not be in conflict with
the case presented against the accused
student. The prosecution has made no eff
Tort to trace the movements of Durrant
during the afternoon until after . o'clock
when Mrs. Mary Nogel swears that she
saw him in front of the Normal school in
Powell street.
Tie defense has been unable to find any
student who saw Durrant at the college
after 1:30 o'clock. If he was in the library,
he was there alone from 2 until after 3 30
O'Clock.
Gilbert F. Graham has been summoned
as witness both by the prosecution ard
defense. For the prosecution he will swear
that Durrant. several days after his ar
rest, asked him for his note book, which he
wished to keep for several days to compare
with his own. For the defense Graham
will testify that he saw Durrant at the
college on April about o'clock. Durrant
insists now that it was Graham who offer
ed to loan his notes instead of being asked
to give them. Graham denies this state
ment and declares that it is absolutely
without proof.