The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-10-02
THEY VISITED THE PAwNsHoP.
Another Witness for the Defense Is
Useful 10 the Prosecution.
Ieiiow Aiiitiamen Try IN Impeach the
Testimony of Pawnbroker Open
heim-Ihe Secretary of the \. Nc.
A Talks Indiscreetly TO a Juryrnan.


over from last week, the defense in the
DoFFant case tnis morning began the
oulla4ng OF an alibl for the young medl-
car student from April % April l. in
S4uAiFe, The purpose Of the alb! IS 10
lnpeach the testimony Of Pawnbroker
oppenhaim and W. J. Phillips who tes-
Tined thai some time between April 3 and
ApriI y Durrant tried to pawn Bs1nche
la mont ring at oppenheim' : store. Dur
ing the course of the testimony, which
covered Durrant's movements on April
= ana ., q struggle was precipitated by
District Attorney Barnes who aga.n
challenged the reliability OF the roll call
book at Cooper college. The argument
ended in victory OF rhe defense 50 far
as the question before the court was
concerned as Judge Murphy sustained an
objection 70 a question propounded by
himself 20 the witness, ana cut of dis
cussi0n
The trial began this morning with q sen
sat4on which was quite as unexpected %
tHe prosecution as TO the defense Juror
!. J. Truman informed the court tn&t last
Ahuf sddy, during the noon recess Of the
court. he Was approached by Al. J. Ne
Coy general secretary Cf the Young
Ien's Christian Association. who cndeav-
ored 70 engage him in conversation on the
subject OF the trial. If you don't hang
Durrant," said Mccoy 10 the juror, we
viii hang you" The court said the Of
fense bordered strongly on a crime. and
cited Mccoy 20 appear in court al noon
on October and show cause why he
should Tot be punished for contempt
X w. MARYLAND. the electrician VINO tes-
uhsd last week with regard 10 The con-
s:ruction of the sunburners in Emanuel
church. was the first witness called. The
testimony was OF the same nature as that
given last week. and was intended 10
show the liability OF escape Of gas under
certain conditions.
The assault on Pawnbroksr Oppenheim's
testimony was then begun The defense
called 10 the stand four witnesses by
whom il was proposed 10 test The ac-
curacy of the pawnbroker's memory. Mar
win Curtis, William Cathcsrt. p !. Neu-
mann and Leonard Everett, members Of
the National Guard and OF the signal
corps to which Durrant belonged. testi-
fed that they had taken various articles
OF jewelry TO Oppenhe.m's store and at
tempted 20 pawn them. They described
the manner in which they were dressed
at the time. The descriptions in many
Instances did not correspond with the de-
scriptions given by Oppehheim when he
was asked 10 tell how the men who tried
10 pawn the articles were dressed Each
Of the four witnesses said he 1ad sub
scribed money 10 assist IN the defense of
1 DtFrant.
The next step was to lmpesch tire tes-
timOuv of David Clark. the witness who
assisted Attorney Quinlan 20 fix the date
upon which he saw Durrant and Blanche
Lamont walking toward Emanuel church.
John Retten. Patrick MuVaney and VI. L.
| Murphy said that Clark's reputation for
truth and integrity was bad. on CROSS
examination Mulvaney and Murphy said
they were prejudiced against Clark from
the fact That they had had business diffi-
culties wth his father. The district at
torney asked that the testimony be Srr.ck-
on out. but the motion was denied by the
court.
The building of Durrant's alihi In con-
tradiction of the charges made by Pawn
broker oppenheim was begun with the
testimony of DR.. \. W. Haihalt. a lee
turer AT the Cooper Medical college. Ask
81 IL Durrant was present at the lecture
given on the morning OF April (. the doc
tor referred TO the roll book and said de-
fcndaut was recorded present. on cross
examination the doctor said he had no
personal knowledge of Durraut's absence
or presence. The defense tried TO Offset
this by asking II he could give the name
of any one of the ifty-one students 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 more II he
were given time TO think the matter over.
The prosecution next attacked the relia-
biltv OF the roll CalL The district attor-
ney had hardly reached the point OF the
subject however, when Judge Murphy
took a hand in the examination. He asked
the witness whether In his experience as
an instructor at the college he had known
Of Instances where students bad answer
/ cd at roll cali for other students VINO We're
not present The defense at once intor-
posed an objection. and the court
placed in the prcaicament of having 10
rule on its own question. The judge said
that while ne might permit the question
50 be answered II X should come from "A
proucr source. he would sustain the oh
lection for the present. Then District
Attorney Barnes asked the same question.
and the defense interpose5 another OBJ
lection. Attorney Dickinson argued that
{ while IL was possible 20 call into court
every student who attended the lecture
and ask each one II he answered At roll
call for Durant. 10 would he unfair 20 cast
suspicion on the particular roll call in
question by any practice or custom hat
might have obtained at another time. The
court said that IL believed the question
proper and the evidence sought compe-
tent. but for the sake Of safety sustained
the objection.
With Durrant'S Whereabouts on the
morning Of April 4 accounted for. the de-
feuse attempted 90 show where the de-
feuaant was the next day. George a.
Merrill an instructor a. the Lick school
OF mechanical arts. said thar burrant
called upou him a. 81 o'clock o. the fore
/ noon II April S Asked ~ Durrant made
know the OBJECT or ms Na4ls tHt MtfN"s~
replied IN the Affirmative. bat De was 1ot
permitted 10 tell what purrant said
Before court adjourned Attorney Dick
lnson called the attention OF the court t.
me large number of threatening letters
received hy himself an6 Attorney pel3-
prev and asked that the jurors De in
strurtea 20 turn such letters over 10 the
-ourt should they receive any The Judge
said ne had reCefve9 a great many letters
Of the same kinc-
p ! Mccoy IS sorry hs spoke. n al
sneak 70 Juror Truman ubstantialy as
stated but SAYS 20 was thrown cut iu
peculiar way which he noN regrets I
looked al the PAPER. Mr. Mccoy salt.
and saw the DurTa1t matter Mr. Trl-
man au1 I we're seated alongside ot each
otaer. and as / saw the article I said %
him very much what he said ! clc. The
moment ! had spoken I knew had done
v.ror< and I wished I had said nothing.
Nut Truman 1ld not make a1y reply. and
nothing more wGs said about g. Z veSret-
ras II as s0on aS t.c words were spoke~-
F}4t certainly had 10 intention of iaf4-
erci9s Truman. and DO not think he le-
leved T intended 10 do SO. " nat sait 20
b.u, was IN a 5ocuiar manner such as
y~te-ss II was clarneVovthv. untcuhfe5-
sf,-er, nae Tor the foolish slip cf the tongue.
hut rhars v-as no ulterlor motive for the
.hotEntleSs remark. That is al there =
70 Il ! have aeve. soGgAt notor-sty. and