The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-09-26

will show you that he arrived at the
church at las and not before that. he
entered by .he door on the south SIDE;
that he went into the library in regard
to a book and card he waited. lie re-
moved his coat, neatly folded 1t, took
out his watch so that it would not drop
out while he was fixing the gas jets. He
then went up to the ceiling by q
ladder and fixed the sun burners. We
will show that when the gas filters
turned on the seventy-two. gas
Jets. much gas escaped. Through lack of
mosphere near the ceiling and when Dur
rant went to the ceiling he inhaled the
gas. which made him sick, as testified by
George Il. King. You are asked to be-
lieve that this man. accused of the mCr-
der, went directly down to secure wit
Durrant was then on the platform lying
down, and when King returned went
down to the kitchen to take the seltzer:
We will show that upon the request OF
King, Durrant helped King to carry
cabinet organ down stairs into the Sun
day-school room. Then Durrant and
King left the church together, Durrant
putting on his coat at the door. 1t being
Kings dinner time. Durrant walked with
him short distance. Then Durrant re-
turned home, meeting lady on the way,
to whom he tolu that the gas had made
him sick. After dinner he won't to the
church to an evening entertainment.
This will be the pie story of the de.
fendant. He will be corroborated by
those who know him we'll and who will
give reasons why their statements are
correct. We will then turn our attention
to some evidence found in that church.
We will show that the marks on the bel
fry door are the marks of chisel, and
that the chisel was found in the pastors
qfi in, q Wa
SO long as they have introduced paper
with letters on it as compared with let
ters found in Emanuel church, that they
are letters written by Rev. John George
Gibson. If we are to act upon suspicious
we will show you that there are others
who have been cast into suspicion and
worse than the defendant We will
show you that on April Sd Durrant wore
a dark suit of clothes of blue cloth. while
the witness Vogel said he had light trous-
ers. We will show that the eyesight OF
Mrs. Leake and Mrs. Crossett is impaired
ana that the regulations of witnesses
Quinlan, Oppenhem and Phillips for
veracity is bad. If we can prove what we
have outlined now, we should have the
spirit of Blanche Lamont to ca upon
you to realize the truth, and if her spirit
could come before you now we believe it
would say, LET the defendant stand out;
let him go free. for he harmed me not"
for his life: we demand his liberty.
After a recess Mrs. Matilda Durrant.
mother of che prisoner, took the stand as
ths first witness for the defense. She told
about her own birth and marriage in To-
ronto, Canada. where Theodore was born.
The family came here in December, 1879.
She detailed the childhood OF the prisoner
and mis- education at various schools.
During vacations he worked at various
occupations and has money in the bank.
She testified that on the morning of
April Sd her son was dressed in blue
cheviot suit, the blue trousers of which
she identified and the garment vas intro
that her son returned home that evening
shortly after dressed III the same blue
cheviot suit. He wore no overcoat. She
testified that the blue trousers were made
to order by local tailor. When Theo-
dore left home in the morning of the Sd
of April he kissed his mother good bye
and salued her IN the same manner when
he returned at Light. The family dined
that evening at :15. but the witness said
Theodore had little appetite and did not
look well. At o clock that evening he
took his mother to street car and when
she returned at II 80 he was in bed and
asleep.
Police Sergeant Reynolds described the
chisel marks on the belfry door. He
searched for a tool With which the marks
m light have been made and in the pas
tors study found a cnisel which fitted the
marks exactly.
Sergeant Reynolds was still being
questioned by Attorney Dickinson when
the court adjourned until tomorrow.
1t was gwen out that DR.. W. f. Cheney
will disappoint the defense in the Dur
rant case by testifying that he does not
know whether or not the defendant was
present in the lecture room OF the Cooper
Medical college on the afternoon of April
81.
This statement of the defense regard
ing what was expected to be produced by
DR.. Cheney fell like II cyclone on the
prosecution, but It's depressing effect was
short lived. DR.. Cheney will positively
not swear to any such state of facts and
expresses surprise that Attorney Deuprey
should have so outlined his testimony
to the jury.
Immediately after the close OF Deu-
prey's statement District Attorney
Barnes sent messenger to DR.. Cheney,
requesting him to come at once to the
city hall. When seen at his office by a
reporter shortly after his conference with
the district attorney, DIR. Cheney said:
Il have been interviewed and oues-
toned on this subject dozens of times
since the arrest o. Theodore Durrant, and
on each of these occasions L have stated
that did not know whether the defend
ant in the case now on trial was in my
class room or not on the afternoon of
April 3. 1895. | supposed that this was
we'll understood, and was greatly sur
prsed when informed of Mr.. Dcuprey's
m ent of what ] was to swear to.
General Dickinson called upon me once
or twice, and to him | have given the
substance of what | am now saying. At
no time did | ever state that | could or
woHld swear that Durrant attended my
lecture, and when called upon the stand
| will certainly adhere to my former
The name of Theodore Dur
rant is marked present on the class book
for April Sd, but whether he was there in
person TO answer to his name or whether
some one OF his fellow students answered
for him am not prepared to say. |
know, as | have stated before. that this
SOFT of thing is done from time to time,
but in the present instance | am totally
unaware of the true circums stances. So
far as the notes of Durrant are concerned
l could tell but very little. The Class
averages about seventy students. and l
don't suppose thu any two make notes
in the same way. The fact that Durrant's
notes were different from the others
would not strike me as oeing remarkable
in any way.
DR.. Cheney has already been subpoe-
naed by the defense, and it is probable
that he will be called during tomorrow
session. His appearance on the stard
will certainly be one OF the most interest
ing features of The long trial, inasm uch
as it is expected that the defendants at
torneys will attempt to maze him swear
to state of facts as they have announced
directly contrary to what he has stated
from the beginning.
LOOKS LIKE A FAKE