The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-10-02
cause why lac should not be punished

cause why he should not be punished
for contempt.
Z. w. Maitland, the electrician who
testified last week with regard to the
Construction of the sunburners in
emmanuel church was the first wit
ness called The testimony was Of the
same nature as that given last week
and WAS intended to show the liability
of the escape CT gas under certain con-
ditions. The assault on Pawnbroker
ODpenheim's testimony then began.
The defense called to the stand four
witnesses by whom il WIS proposed to
test the accuracy Of the pawnbroker's
| memory.
Martin Curtis, William Cathcart, P
J. Neuman and Leonard Everett, men,
l,ers of the National Guard and the
signal corps to which Durrant be-
! ionged testified that they had taken
various articles Of jewelry to Open
helms store and attempted 10 pawn
/ them. Ihey described the manner in
which they were dressed at the time
! The descriptions IN many instances
/ did ret correspond with the descrip-
! tons given by Oppenheim when he
was asked to tell how the men who
had tried to pawn the articles were
/ dressed. Each IF the four witnesses
said he had subscribed money to as
sist in the defense of Durrant.
After Clark.
The next step was to impeach the
testimony of David Clark, the witness
who assisted Attorney Quinlan to fix
the date upon which he saw Durrant
! and Blanche Lamont walking toward
1 Emmanuel church. John Patten. Pat
rick Nfulvaney and NJ l. Murphy said
/ that Clark's reputation for truth and
integrity was bad. On cross eXamina-
ton 3iulvaney and Murphy said they
/ were preiudicN1 against Clark from the
fact that they had business difficulties
| with his father. The district attorney
/ asked that The testimony be stricken
out. but the motion was denied by the
| court.
Tho building Of Durrant's alibi. in
/ contradiction of the charge made by
Pawnbroker 0ppenheim, was begun
! with the testimony of DR. A ". Hal
halt, a lecturer at Cooper Medical col
lege. Asked if Durrant was present at
1 the lecture given on the morning Of
! April l. the doctor referred to the call
book and said that the defendant " as
| recommended present. On cross-eXa1.4-
! 5nation the doctor said he had no per
sonal knowledge of Durrant's absence
or presence. The defense tried tn off
set this by asking if he could give the
name of any one of the fifty-one stu
dents in. the class who attended the
lecture ON the morning. in question.
The doctor recalled the names of a
dozen students and said he believed he
could remember g.cre if he were given
time to think tie matter over.
The Roll Cali.
The prosecution next attacked the re-
liability Of the roll call. Before the
district attorney had hardly reached
the point Of the subject, however,
Judge Murphy took a hand in the eX-
animation. He asked the witness
whether in his experience as an in
! structor at the college he had known
of instances where students had an
swered at roll call for other students
who were not present. The defense at
once interposed an objection and the
Court was PLACED in the predicament
{ Of having to rule on it's own question
, The judge said that while he might
permit the question to be answered il
it should come from a proper source
ne w0lild sustain the objection for the
t present. Then District Attorney Barnes
! asked the same question and the de
reHSe interp0Sed another objection. At
: torney Dickinson argued that while il
was possible to cali into court every
student who attended the lecture anC
ask each one if he answered at roll cal
for Durrant. it would be unfair to cas-
SA-AfA'-itn On Tie l|d-i llEuliI ron te44l II
+ question by any practice or custom
{ that might have obtained cit another
time. The court said that it believed
= the question proper and the evidence
sought competent, but for the sake Of
! safely sustained the objection.
Threatening Letters.
With Durrant's Whereabouts on the
morning Of April 4 accounted for the
: defense ATTEMPTED to show where the
defendant was the next day. George
5 A. Merrill. an instructor at the Lick
= school Of mechanical arts, said that
] Durrant called upon him at II o'clock
5 on the forenoon Of April D. Asked if
[ Durrant made known the object of his
1 call, the witness replied in the afhrma-
i tive. but he was not permitted to tell
what Durrant said.
= Before court adjourned Attorney
Dickinson called the attention of the
e court tt the large number of threaten
ing letters that were being received
\ by himself and Attorney Deuprey and
: asked that the jurors be Instructed to
turn such letters over TO the court
should they receive any.
The judge said he received great
many letters Of the same kind.