The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-10-02
The BOLD AL|b| BUILDERS
Ourrant's Attorneys Fighting
for Their Clients Neck
PEOPLE WANT 1T BROKEN
And One of Them Threatens to Hang
Juror
Irf NJ 0utt Ia of Dafu al hs,f
"a Verdict Of Guilty Is Not Returned, but
Now Is Very Sorry That
He Spoke
Associated Press Special Wire.

Associated Press Special Wire.
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 1.-After gath
sing up the few ragged ends of testimony
left over from last week, the defense in
the Durrant case this morning began the
building of an alibi for the young medi-
cal student from April 4th to 18th in
elusive. The purpose of the ailb is to
impeach the testimony Of Pawnbroker
Oppenheim and w. J. Phillips, who tes-
tied that some time between April Sd and
18th Durrant tried to pawn Blanche
Lamont's ring at Oppenheim's store.
During the course of the testimony
which covered Durrant's movements on
April 4th and 5th, d struggle was precip-
itated by District Attorney Barnes who
again challenged the reliability of a
roll call book at Cooper college. The
argument ended In victory for the de-
fense 30 far as the question before the
court was concerned as Judge Murphy
sustained an objection to question pro-
pounded by himself to the witness and
cut off discussion.
The trial began this morning with a
sensation which was quite as unexpected
to the prosecution as to the defense.
Juror I. ]. Truman informed the court
that last Thursday during the noon
recess of the court he was approached by
H. J. Mccoy. general secretary OF tho
Young Mems Christian association, who
endeavored to engage him in converse
ton ON the subject of the trial.
''lf you don't hang Durrant," said
Mccoy to the juror, I'VE will hang you."
The court said the offense bordered
strongly on a cr ime and cited Mccoy to
appear in court at noon on October Sd
anu show cause why he should not be
punished for contempt.
r. W. MARYLAND. the electrician who
testified last week with regard to the
construction of the sun burners in Eman.
uel church was the first witness called.
The testimony was OF the same nature
as that given last week and was intended
to show the liability of tba escape of gas
under certain cen 1itions. The assault
on PawrbroKer Oppenheim's testimony
then began. The defense called to the
stand four witnesses by whom it was
proposed to test the accuracy of the
pawnbroker's memory. Marvin Curtis,
William Cathoart. P. ]. Newman and
Leonard Everett, members of the national
guard ana the signal corps, to which
Durrant belonged. testified that they
had taken various articles of jeweIly to
Oppenheim's S store and attempted to pawn
them. They described the manner in
which they were dressed at the time.
The description in many instances did
not correspond with the description
given bv Oppenheim when he was asked
TO tell how the men who tried to paw n.
the articles were dressed. Each OF the
four witnesses said he had subscribed
money 10 assist in the defense OF Durrant.
This next step was to lmpeach the tes-
.inory OF David CLARK, the witness who
assisted Attorney Quinlan to fix the date
Lamont wa liking toward Emanuel
church. John Patten. Patrick Mulvaney
and NJ. L. Murphy SAID that Clark's rep
utation for truth and integrity was bad.
On cross-examlnation Mulvaney and
Murphy said they were prejudiced against
Clark from the fact that they hal had
business difficulties with his father. The
district attorney asked that the testi.
mony be stricken out, but the motion
was denied by the court
The building of Durrant's alibi. in con-
tradlction of the charge made by pawn
broker Oppenheim. was bsgun with the
testimony of DR.. A. w. Haihalt. a lec-
turer at Cooper Medical college. Asked
If Durrant was present at the lecture
given on tho morning of April 4th, the
doctor referred to the call book and said
that the defendant was recorded present.
On cross examination the doctor said he
had no personal knowledge of Durrants
presence or ABSENCE. The defense tried
to offset this by asking if he could give
the name of anv one of the fifty one STU
dents in the class who attended the lee
ture on the morning in question. The
doctor recalled the names of dozen stu
dents. and said he believed he could re-
member more if he were given time to
think the matter over.
r The prosecution next attacked the reli-
ability of the roll call. Before the dis.
trict attorney had hardly reached the
point Of the subject, however, Judge
Murphy took hand in the examination.
He asked the witness whether in his ex-
perience as an instructor at the college
he had known of instances where stu
dents had answered at roll cali for other
students who were not present. The de-
fense at once inteIposed an objection.
and the court was placed IN the predica-
ment of having to rule on its own ques-
tion
krhe Judge said that while he might
permit the question to be answered if
would sustain the objection for the pres
ent. Then District Attorney Barnes
asked the same question and the defense
interposed an direction. Attorney Dick
inson argued that while it was possible to
call into court every student who at
tended the lecture and ask each one if
he answered a roll call for Durrant, 1T
would be unfair to cast SUSPICION on the
particular roll call in question by any
practice or custom that might have OBJ
tained at another time. The court said
that it believed the question proper and
the evidence sought competent, but for
the sake of safety sustained the objection.
With Durrants whereabouts on the
morning of A pril accounted for, the de-
tense attempted to show where the de
fendant was the next day. George A.
Merrill, an instructor at the Lick School
of Mechanical Arts, said that Durrant
called upon him at Il O'Clock on the fore
noon of April s. Asked if Dutrant made
known the object of his CALL the witness
replied in the affirmative, but he was
not permitted to tell what Durrant said.
Before court adjourned Attorney Dick
inson called the attention of the court to
the large mum her of threatening letters
received by himself and Attorney Deu-
prey and asked that the jurors be in
str,icted to turn such letters ov,r to the
court should they receive any.
The Judge said be mad received a great
many letters of the same kind.
II. J. Mccoy is sorry he spoke. He did
speak to Juror Truman substantially as
slated, but says it was thrown out in a
peculiar way, which he now regrets.
II looked at the paper. - Mr.. Mccoy said
tonight. ''snd saw the Durrant matter.