Elmore bulletin. [volume] (Rocky Bar, Idaho) 1889-1906, 1895-10-09

Thms n1A Nos AmMMUr W. FmNemm4'M MnAmM
nj w. R0it Cmla.
san prAnciaeo. Get Airs Hefenr1 Is
the parrant case afa ibAsx tbat which 3
han often urged TIE prenaeatton 90 81.
Attorney Dennras called - enc atana M
members 81 the class % whom pr. CAa-
ney lectured On Eae aftefneon Of Aprn
and asked each enc x be answered %
Durtantsa name St roIi caIL EveFg an-
Bwer waa Ia the negative. Attorney NaM.
prey went further and asked each Etuaaat
IL he knew OF any other member q the
class who had answered - nurraa4,a
nnn1e. Not one of the Witnesses had any
information on the sub3eet. OF the
students summoned 70 the stand not ono
knew whether Durrnnt was at the lecture
room IN Cooper college q the day that
Blanche Lamont was murdered or not.
Neither Guild they call to mind any
student who was there. II n expected
that the remaining u members Of the
clasE VIII be called % the stand tomorrow.
While the step taken today In calling
/ Dnrrantss classmates 10 the stand Ia
| generally regarded a. d bold move a can
not be aaid that Il resulted to the mate
rial advantage Of either side. The testi-
mony Of the 6 witnesses who were placed
I Il went 20 refute the contention Of the
prosecution that somebody else answered
| 10 Durrant'e name on the day Of The muir
| der. On the other hand the prosecution
| contends that Ire testimony ~ unimpor-
tant inasmuch al 1s students might giwe
satisfactory evidence for tho defense
while the 7fth member OF the class. II he
could be found, would give the evidences
that The prosecution 50 much desired.
Great stress was laid by both sides 90
day On the memory OF the witnesses - 10
the Individual atudenta who attended the
lecture While the prosecution showed
that not one Of the students who were
present could On thu stand remember
seeing purrnht at the lecture the defense
brought out the fact that witnesses did
not remember any other student who was
present Today's testimony, therefore
resulted In no material advantage %
Ernest Mccullough. clvll engineer. ses-
tlned with regard to the dimensions and
interior urrnngement OF Onpenhsfus'a
pawnahop. This object Of the testimony
~ supposed 10 have been 20 show that
not have positively Identified the man
who Is said 70 have tried 70 pawn one Of
Blanche Lamonts rings.
One Of the attorneys for the Durrauk de.
fenEe. a. VI. Thompson. consented In view
81 the remarks Of Rev. George Gibson. q
outline tho facts and theories which
caused Eugene Deuprey IN the opening
statement TO throw suspicion upon the
pastor Of the Emanuel church. The FIRST
suspicion nG the defense arose from Glib.
sons own testimony In the Minnie WIN.
iams case. Gibson aasd he was In this
study from until z:s0 on the night OF ths
Williams murder. while ct . later hour
he walked to Dr. VoMefs and attend2d Z
social Another point dweIE upon by the
defense II the fact that the lock OF tn,
library door was pried of with the pas
tors ehlsel Durraat and King had keys
therefore the former would not h@v.
forced IL. One Of their dramatic point
Il that Gibson. By his own admission. wa
the first person known 20 have been In al,
church Friday night and the first one OF
Saturday.
In the Lamont case they have nav
ground for suspicion In the fact tina
Blanche Lamont on Saturday evenini
preceding her disappearance remafl<el
that she was going 10 speak az q psaye
meeting April s. on MY Dual Life" an,
wiahed 70 consult her pastor on she sub
iecE