The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-09-27
DIR. CHENEY TESTIFIES
But PROVES A VERY POOR WITNESS
FOR THEODORE DURRANT.
He Has No Recollection OF Seeing the
ture ON the Afternoon Of April 3.


stone in the arch Of Durrants alibi crum-
bled and fell to-day. The witness upon
whom the attorneys for the defense de-
pended most to sustain their contention
that Durrant was attending a lecture at
Cooper Medical College at the hour when
Blanche Lamont was murdered. gave dis
appointing testimony. Instead of testify
ing that Durrant was present at the lee
ture, as attorney Duprey said DR.. Cheney
would do. the Doctor said he had no recol-
lection of seeing the young medical stu
dent. To Offset this reverse the defense
gained only one point-the admission as an
exhibit of the roll-call book at the col
lege. in which Durrant was recorded as
present at the lecture given on the after
noon of April g. The prosecution holds
the roll-call book in little esteem, from
the fact that it will place witnesses on
the stand to prove that Durrant frequent
ly asked his classmates to answer to his
name when he was absent. and that they
complied with his request.
The crush in the corridors at the en-
trance to the court was greater to-day
than on any other day since the trial
began. Men and women fought for admis-
sion, while the sheriff and a score of dep
uties struggled as desperately to keep the
crowd back At times the confusion out
side was SO great that proceedings of the
court We're interrupted. At length Judge
Murphy summoned the sheriff and ordered
him to clear the corridors. If the sheriff's
force was insufficient the judge said he
would call the chief of police for a
squad of men to execute the order.
Sergeant Reynolds, the police officer,
who conducted the search of Emanuel
Church after the discovery of the bodies
of Blanche Lamont and Minnie Williams
was the first witness called to the stand
After describing the furniture and other
articles found in the pastors study he
was asked about the chsel marks f. and in
and casing through which the murderer
passed with the body of his victim were
brought into the court, and formed one
The witness testified that the marks cor
responded in size to chisel found in
tool box in Rev. John George Gibson's
study. The witness was also asked to
identify a shoe supposed to have been
stained with blood. which was found in
the pastors study. AS Sergeant Reynolds
did not know to whom the shoe belonged
also in ignorance with regard to the own
DIR. W. Cheney of Cooper Medical Col
iege. who was supposed to be the mainstay
of the defense. was the next witness. He
said the lecture on April began at 3:3f
and lasted until Ais o'clock, at the close Of
which the roll was called. The witness did
not, as the roll was called by DR.. F. p
Gray DIR. Cheney was temporarily excused
and DIR. Gray summoned DR.. Gray did not
know whether Durrant was present or not.
but assumed that he was from the scct
that he was not marked absent on the roll
call. Questioned with regard to the roll
call book the witness admitted that the en-
--~4y trfv ,oI
IL had been transferred from another page
subsequent TO that date for the purpose of
rectifying an error. On this ground the
not admitted as an exhibit, but the ohjec-
ton was ovefruled.
DIR. Cheney was then recalled and reiter-
ated his statement to the effect that he had
no recollection of seeing Durrant at the lee.
ture given on the afternoon of April g.
Attorney Duprey was plainly nettled at the
conflict between what the defense had
promised DR.. Cheney would testify to and
what he really did say. so another efYc-t
was made to obtain satisfactory answer
The witness was asked II. I'm converse
tense, he (the witness) had not said that
he believed that Durrant was present at
the lecture. The court asked attorney Du-
prey If he was trying to impeach his own
witness. and then sustained an objection
interposed by the prosecution.
On cross-examination District Attorney
Barnes tried to. show. that students at the
college frequently had their classmates an
swer to their names at ro,l-call when they
were absent The witness asked IL in
his experience as an instructor at the col
lege he had not become aware of the ex-
istence OF such practice The defense OBJ
jected to the question on account OF its
sweeping nature. The court sustained the
objection. but intimated that the question
might be asked If made in proper form
Two or three more questions OF similar i'm
port were asked. but objections were sus-
tanned i'm each case. Court adjourned until
tomorrow morning with the cross-exam-
ination of DIR. Cheney stu incomplete.