The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-18
Two Witnesses Saw Him There
With Different Young
Women.
WILL APPEAR AND TESTIFY
Mrs. Leak, the All-Important Wit
ness, Is Greatly Annoyed by
Visitors.
THE DURRANT CASE IN A MINUTE-MoRE
WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION

WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION.
Two additional witnesses for the prosecution,
in addition TO Mrs. Caroline S. Leak, have been
discovered by the police. They are A. Kellner
a contractor residing at 948 Mission street, and
John Rosh, a carpenter residing at 100 Tenth
street They state positively that while build
ing the roof on the auditorium of Emmanuel
Baptist Church in September, 1898, they saw
Durrant on two occasions ascend to the belfry
in company with young lady. This evil
dence while not bearing directly upon the
case is produced by the prosecution for the
purpose of showing beyond doubt that Dur
rant had been in the habit, before the disap-
pearance and murder of Blanche Lamont of
visiting the church in company with lady
companion, and also that he was familiar with
the ascent to the belfry.
Mrs. Leak, the other new witness, has been
considerably annoyed since her name has been
mentioned in connection with the case by
constant stream of visitors wishing to see her
on one pretext or another. She dislikes the
publicity that has been thrust upon her. and
will probably take q trip to the country to
avoid it.
Since the knowledge of the nature of Mrs.
Leaks testimony has become public property
it is stated that the defense will again renew
its motion for change of venue, Judge
Murphy having indicated, when he denied the
former motion, that, at another time, were the
application made on a proper showing he
would entertain it. Concerning this state
ment the attorneys for the defense have moth
ing to say, and only time will tell.
NOTE TO THE READER If you wish only to
know what was actually accomplished in the
Durrant case yesterday the foregoing summary
win give you that information. If, however,
1t is your desire to learn the particulars of this
interesting trial you will find subjoined clear
succinct, impartial account OF all important
matters. Under no circumstances will the
offensive details be admitted. They are not
essential to an intelligent understanding of
the progress of the case, and will be accorded
no place in these columns.
Interest in the Durrant case, already at
fever heat, was considerably heightened
yesterday by the announcement from the
police that they had discovered other new
witnesses besides Mrs. Caroline S. Leak.
There are two of them and their testimony,
while not bearing directly on the case,
establishes beyond doubt that Durrant,
previous to the disappearance of Blanche
Lamont, had visited the belfry of Emman-
uel Baptist Church several times-each
time in the custody of young lady.
These witnesses are A. Kellner, con-
tractor residing at 947 Mission street, and
John Rosh, carpenter residing at 120
Tenth street, They were called upon on
August by Detective Gibson and as re-
suit of their interviews with him were sub
penaed to testify at the trial.
Mr.. Kellner states positively that he saw
Durrant in the belfry of the church with
young lady in September, 1898, and Mr..
Rosh, who was present on one OF these
occasions, bears him out to that extent.
Kellner had the contract for constructing
the roof of the present auditorium in the
church and Rosh was in his employ.
One afternoon while alone at the work,
| Kellner states, he saw Durrant ascending
| the stairs leading to the belfry, assisting a
very good-looking girl up. He was &C
quainted with Durrant and could not be
! know the young lady. A few days later,
while Rosh was with him, they both saw
Durrant with another young lady on the
belfry stairs. On each occasion the young
people remained aloft about fifteen min
! utes.
The police realize that this is going
| pretty far back, but upon discovering the
witnesses it was resolved to subpoena them
to show if possible that Durrant had visit
ed the grewsome belfry several times with
young women. This testimony may not
| be allowed in, and it is not the intention
to press the matter. They were subpenaed
| merely to save a possible point and to be
| used in case of an emergency. AS it is
there is not doubt but what the prosecu-
| ton is satisfied with the mass of evidence
it has gathered against Durrant, and es-
pecially with the testimony of Mrs. Caro-
line S. Leak.
All stories to the contrary Mrs. Leaks
evidence cannot fail to be impressive.
Despite the fact that several persons mimi
I Il. L i
porters for THE CALL that Mrs. Leak is
given to gossip, their statements go for
naught in the face of her exemplary life,
her excellent reputation and the voluntary
testimonials to her character given by her
friends. If she is nothing more, Mrs.
Leak is bright, well-preserved woman, in
the full use OF every faculty, and her testi-
mony was only offered to the State after
the full and deliberate conviction that such
course was the only one to pursue. She
has son and daughter of her own the
latter, Mrs. Burke residing at Palo Alto
or San Mateo, and, knowing what an ex-
emplary young man Durrant appeared to
be, she hestated to give testimony that
would plunge the son of another woman
into trouble. That is the reason why she
hesitated long after her mind had been
made up to the firm belief that he was the
man who had lured Blanche Lamont to
her death.
When at last, however Mrs. Leak be-
came convinced that her further silence
would be an absolute flying in the face OF
providence she unbosomed her story to the
police, and then and there, for several
reasons, it was agreed that her name
should not be used in connection with the
case until the very moment she was called
to the witness stand. In the first place,
Mrs. Leak feared the notoriety that she
knew would follow in the wake of pub
licity. She wanted to be bothered neither
by callers nor reporters, and for that rea-
son, if there had been no other, Captain
Lees decided to say nothing concerning the
lady or her testimony.
The captain had, however, another and
weightier reason. From his observation
and that of his men he had arrived at the
conclusion that the defense proposed to
make vigorous attack to weaken if not
wholly impeach the testimony of the
witness Martin Quinlan. Satisfied of this,
he proposed to let Durrants counsel go
ahead and do their worst, fully convinced
that any attack they might make on
Quinlan would only rebound with double
force upon the head of the defendant
when Mrs. Leak told the story that would