The San Francisco call., 1895-10-12

questions were resumed.
"on, April did you go to the coalyard first
.sTo the coalyard / might say here that
| didn't order the coal that time. l went there
| for different purpose"
| sDid you not state this morning that you
| ordered the coal on that occasionY
'sIf l did had in mind Friday.
''Why did you go on April 81?
''To see the proprietor about insurance
"What time did you leave the bank?"
GAS soon as received my bankbook, near IL
"What did you do after that?"
al went downtown"
"Where did you go?"
Dickinson objected to the question, but
was overruled.
ITO the ferries" answered the witness.
"Were you aware on April 8, 1895, that MIN
ME Williams resided in Alameda?'
Dickinson-I object on the ground that II IS
incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and
not proper crosS-eXamination.
The COURT do not remember counsel TOT
the defense asking anything about what hap
peneQ on April except what the defendant
did between the hours OF and II O'CLOCK on
| that day. may be mistaken, but that is my
| Barnes-Your Honor is correct in regard to
| the testimony
The cOurt-What is the object OF tnls ques-
| ton?
| Mr. Barnes-Tbe object is frst-the de-
fendant testified as to what ne @ dla between r;ebt
! certain hours on that day, and have rlght
| to extend the examination to test the recol-
| lection of the witness OF what happened on
| that day. Another object OF the question is
| to show, if | can, that as matter OF fact the
| purpose for which the defendant stated upon
| the stand he was at the ferry was IN Iact NOT
the true purpose, but that he was there LOT an
| other and different purpose. 1t is introductory
| to lead up TO and throw some light upon the
jury as to what he was there ior. ,a,o nv,
| Dlck1nSon-I was very caretuI 10 cOHHHe my
| questions TO the doings OF the defendant aIleC
| April TO certain hours. If the code allows
| the prosecution to extend It's examination over
| other hours. | WHY
| tend it over any hour of any day 1t sees nt
The prosecution cannot call this defendant as
| Its own witness and do not see how III can ex-
! tend the examination. The crOss-examlnatlon
| has extended the limits of its questions con-
| siderably. We are entitled to have them con-
| fined 10 the times which the questions on the
| direct examination indicate and the time those
questions covered.
The court-There is no rule that know OF
which confines the crossexaminatlon to sus-
| tain questions 6nd answers and certain times,
| provided 1T does not wander from the SUBJECT
matter OF the direct examinations; whenever
| the subject-matter is opened by the defense the
prosecution can go into it fully.
Dickinson-I asked, "What did you do be-
| tween the hours of 10 and IL ?" and the cross
examination cannot go beyond those hours.
The COURT have serious doubts whether the
defense can shut off by its questions the ques-
tions of the cross-examfnation. but the District
Attorney has gone out of the direct line OF the
subJect-matter, and l therefore think the OBJ
examination.
"On which corner of Post and Dupont did
you meet the stranger?"
non the west side as I was about to cross
Dupont on the north side of Post"
Opposite the Bohemian Club?"
"I don't know where that is"
"Do you know where Sutter street isl"
"One block above Post"
"Where is Bush StreetY'
"Two blocks above Post"
'fAnd Pine?'
"Three blocks"
What time was it when you met this un-
known man?'
Probably after O'Clock"
"Do you know of your own knowledge where
Oppenheim's pawnshop is2'
"Only from having it pointed out to me as
was riding down from the jail.''
ado you know that it is on the west side of
Dupont street,"
''Yes, sir.
"And between Bush and Pine?"
''Was it on the west side of Dupont you met
this iyss stranger ing
'Now, Mr.. Durraut, do I understand it as
! your tnality that you never at any time ad-
dressed an envelope to your attorneys marked
10 be opened II l am convicted and to be re-
| turned to me If l am not conyicted?"
Dickinson-We object. That has already
| been gone into. Besides if there were such an
| legged comm unication.
The court-The contents of the euvelope
| might be privileged, but hardly the envelope,
But understand the District Attorney offers TO
| follow up this with testimony. If such is the
case will admit it, with the understanding
! that 1t is merely Introductory.
! Barnes-So far as l am concerned the dues-
! ton is merely introductory
The couIt-The objection is overruled, with
! the understanding, OF course, that the answer
is 10 be stricken out ii the subject is not fol-
| lowed up properly.
Witness (answering)-Ia addressed no such en-
velope.
Did you not, as matter OF fact, have
! small envelope, so addressed, in your posses
sion on in the County Jail on September 22?'
''And on the 23d of September did you not
transfer the contents OF the small envelope TO
| your doings on April 3, and did you not show
| such large ana such small envelope on each
OF the days mentioned, between the hours of
p. p, N. ia ana midnight, to Miss Cunningham"
did you show any or either of those en-
yeiopes to any other person"
"Did you on the 5th of October, in cell 20 of
| the county Jail, in conversation with Miss
cunningham, say that when you were al work
M MnAing the sunburners you heard noise
and followed it up to the belfry and there saw
the dead body OF Blanche Lamont the sec
| ond landing, and did you say that she was
murdered in the second landing of the belfry?"
- There was story brought 10 me by Miss
cunningham which, like the sweet pea girl
heard about town, to the effect that l had
heard noise while fixing the gas, and that
nad followed the noise to the landing above to
see what 1t was, and discovered what you make
reference to; neither affirmed nor denied it,
as l nave done with every reporter who has
brought story to me. l asked her if she in
| tended to publish this, and told her she
would put me 10 great annoyance if she did.
She SAID she would say nothing about it what
ever, and she stood box and said she
would solemnly promise me she would say
nothing about il until it could be proved
NOW, ask for the proof to come forward"
"Is that alp"
"That is ALL
DID she not ask you if you were sure 1t was
the second landing, and say that landing was
not IN slght from where you were, and then
that 1t was the second landing as that was
where the blood fell on to the cloth-covered
picture; and did you not say that there was no
blood at all; that what seemed to be blood had
been analyzed and found to be only water?"
She framed her story in something of that
way: l argued the points with her that one
could not see any one in the belfry from the