The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-10-09
DIDN'T AID DURRANT.
A Witness for the Defense As
sists the Prosecution.
HE WAS TO ImPEAcH oPPENHElM
Instead. He Testiffes That He Visited
the Pawnshop in the Afternoon
Durrant Went fn the Morning.

San Francisco, Oct. s-After wandering
through maze OF unimportant witnesses.
the defense in the Durrant case this after
noon summoned 10 the stand two OF the
most important witnesses that have been
called since the prosecution closed It's case.
one Of the witnesses was satisfactory TO
the defense. from the fact that upon cross
examination he failed 20 give important
testimony expected BY the prosecution. The
examination OF the other witness had only
just begun when court took a recess until
tomorrow morning. but in the short time
that the witness was on the stand he testi-
ned TO one important fact which was d.
rectly opposed 70 what the defense had
hoped 10 establish.
The most important witness OF the day
was Charles T. Lenahan. the young man
who, the defense contends, was mistaken
for Durrant by Pawnbroker Oppenhelm.
Ienahan, who does not bear striking re-
semblance to the prisoner. said that on
April he attempted to pawn a small dia-
mond ring. similar TO the one worn by
Blanche Lamont, at Oppenheim's shop.
The witness said that he asked Oppenheim
the same questions and received the same
replies that Oppenheim quoted in relat-
Ing the conversation he had with the
man whom Oppenheim testified was Dur
rant. Then came the surprise to the de-
Tense, which counteracted nearly all Of the
strength gained from the witness testi-
mony. Lenahan said he tried 10 pawn the
ring in the afternoon. while Oppenhe!m
testified that Durrant entered the shop in
the morning. Attorney Deuprey was con-
siderably disconnected by the statement Of
the witness, and endeavored TO impeach
Lenahan's testimony by reading a letter
written ny Ienahan 10 the attorneys for
the defense, in which he divulGed the fact
that he had tried to pawn a small diamond
ring at Oppenheim's on the same day that
Durrant was said 10 have entered the
place. The court interrupted Deuprey.
however. and permitted him to read only
such parts Of the letter as referred TO the
question at issue. Deuprey then asked
that the letter be admitted in evidence. The
court refused TO admit the whole letter
In evidence, as some parts were devoted
10 the expression of the writer's opinions
as to the correctness OF Oppenhe.ms testi-
mony. The remainder of the letter was ad-
mitted
After Lenahan surprised the defense by
stating that he tried to pawn the ring in
the afternoon, Attorney Deuprey asked
him several questions intended to indi-
cate that he had transferred his sympathes
from the defense to the prosecution.
Among other things Attorney Deuprey
asked Lenahan If he had not been influ-
enced by persons known to be in sympathy
with the prosecution? Deuprey also asked
him when he shaved off the mustache that
he wore when he entered Oppenheim's
shop. Lenahan said he had never worn a
mustaehe in his life. Deuprey minated
that he would impeach the testimony of
the witness on this point by statement
contained in the letter written by Lenahan
TO the attorneys for the defense.
w. a. Dukes a student at Cooper Medi-
cal college, who was expected to give
strong evidence for the prosecution. gave
disappointing testimony. Dukes said that
Durrant asked him If he could remember
that he attended DR. Cheney's lecture on
the afternoon Of April 3. and 10 that end
recalled a number of incidents said to have
taken place AT the time. Although Dukes
seat in the lecture room was next 10 Dur
rants, Dukes could not remember whether
Durrant was there or not, and told him
So Dukes said il was untrue. as had been
reported. that Durrant asked him as fav-
or to testify that he did attend the lee
ture. on the contrary, Dukes said that
Durrant told him he wished him to testify
only 10 the facts as he remembered them.
With one exception. the remainder Of
the witnesses We're called to testify TO the
previous reputation of the defendant. II.
y. +. Marshall. a reporter on a morning
paper. testified that on April II Detective
Gibson. who discovered Blanche Lamont's
body in the belfry of Emanuel church. told
him that he saw the prints of a No. 9 shoe
near where the body lay. Durrant wears
a smaller shoe.
In the case OF Miss Carrie Cunningham,
a newspaper reporter who refused 10 DIS
close the source Of certain informa ton re-
lative 10 the nature Of Mrs. Leaks testi,
mony. Judge Murphy ruled that the Wit
ness was right in refusing to answer the
question Miss Cunningham was therefore
not punished for contempt.
In recognition of Miss Cunningham's
firmness the Press Club today elected her
an honorary member.