The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-10-03
CLASSMATES QUlZZED
DURRANT's FELLOw-COLLEGE STU
DENTS ON THE WITNESS STAND.
Not One Answered to Prisoners Name
ON April 3-Basis Of Duprey's In
sinuations as to Rev. Gibson.

SAN FRANCISCO. Oct. 2.-The defense
in the Durrant case did to-day that which
it has often urged the prosecution to do.
Attorney Duprey called to the stand fifty
nine members of the class to whom DIR.
Cheney lectured on the afternoon Of April
and asked each OF them if he answered
to Durrant's name at roll call. Every an
swer was in the negative. Attorney Du-
prey went further and asked each student
if he knew of any other student who had
answered for Durrant. Not one of the
witnesses had any information on the SUBJ
stand not one knew whether Durrant was
at the lecture room in Cooper College on
the day that Blanche Lamont was muir
dered. Neither could they call TO mind any
other student who was there. 1t is ex-
pected that the remaining fourteen men,
bers of the class will be. called to the
stand tomorrow.
While the step taken by defense to-
day in calling Durrant's classmates to the
stand Is generally regarded as a bold
move. 1t cannot be said that 1T resulted
TO the material advantage of either side.
The testimony of ffty-nine witnesses who
We're placed on the stand important
IN so far as ii went TO refute the conten-
ton of the prosecution that somebody
else answered Durrant's name on the day
prosecution contends that the testimony
Is unimportant, inasmuch seventy-three
students might give satisfactory evidence
for the defense. while the seventy-fourth
member of the class, if he could be found,
would give the evidence that the prosecu-
tion so much desired. Great stress was
of the witnesses as to the individual stu
dents who attended the lecture. While
the prosecution showed that no one Of the
students who were placed on the stand re-
membered seeing Durrant at the lecture,
the defense brought out the fact that the
Witnesses did not remember any other
student who there. To-day's testi-
mony, therefore. resulted in no material
advantage to either side.
Ernest Mccullough, civil engineer. tes-
interior arrangement of Oppenheims pawn
shop. The object Of the testimony is sup
posed to have been 10 show that Open
helm, who Is near sighted, could not have
positively identified the man who is said
70 have tried to pawn one of Blanche
One OF the attorneys for the Durrant
In the light OF the remarks made public
by Rev. j. George Gibson, to outline the
facts and theories which caused Eugene
Duprey, in his opening statement. to throw
suspicion on the pastor OF Emanuel Church,
and to intimate to the jury that reason
show will point toward the same gentle
man. The defense does not like Mr. Glib
sons remarks at ALL In the first place.
purrant's lawyers say that the pastors as
sertion that Durrant considered him guilty
was entirely uncalled for, Durrant never
expressed himself on this subject and
would not have declined the pastoral hand
had Ii been extended to him at any time
since his arrest The theory Of Mr. Glib
sons guilt comes entirely from the law
ers and they & saa to stand ID by their
Tense In regard TO the matter arose during
the preliminary examination from Mr. Gb-
sons own testimony 1t was in regard TO
the Minnie Williams case that the first
doubts arose. In his testimony the
defense states, Mr. Gibson made many ad-
missions which looked queer and some de-
his own story, they say, he was i'm his
study from until 7:3o on the night Of the
Williams murder. At the latter hour he
distance of three blocks. arriving there
shortly before eight IL occurred 10 Dur
rants attorneys that that was slow time
Later DR.. Gibson modified his testimony
stating that he arrived at the Vogers a
reasonable time after 7:30 But according
to Mrs McVey, they point out that Miss
Williams II she went directly 10 the church
must have arrived there at about the same
time. Their conclusion is obvious-the two
were there alone for an hour and hall
and their theory Is that. the murder com
social and enjoyed hmself. Another point
dwelt upon by the defense Is the fact that
and by the pastors chisel. the force they
like to talk about Both Durrant and King
had keys to the lock. therefore the former
would not have forced H. The person who
forced the lock did not have a key TO II
they argue. One OF their dramatic points Is
that Gibson, by his own admission. was
the last person known 10 have been ir
the church on Friday night and the first
one on Saturday morning In the Lamon,
case they have a new ground for suspicion
which has never been made public and did
not appear in the preliminary examination
This Is the fact hitherto unknown. bu
or more competent unimpeachablc wit
ncsses. that Blanche Lamont had Intended
to address the prayer meeting on tho eve
OF April & Ii seems that on Sunday even,
Ing preceding Blanche Lamont's disappear
c1ce she remarked at the meeting Of thu