The Kootenai herald. [volume] (Kootenai, Idaho) 1891-1904, 1895-10-05
A Sensation Unexpected to the
Prosecution and Defense.
THREATS ARE BEING MADE
The Judge Is Called Upon 10 Rule on
His Own Question TO Wit
ness in Durrant's Trial.

San Francisco, Oct. AFTER gather
Ing up a 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
medical student from April to April
Il inclusive. The purpose of the alibi
is to impeach the testimony of Pawn
broker Oppenheim and w. J. Phillips,
who testified that on April II Durrant
tried to pawn Blanche Lamont's ring
at Oppenheim's store.
During the course of the testimony
which covered Durrants movements
on April and 5, struggle was pre-
cipitated by District Attorney Barnes,
who again challenged the reliability of
roll call book at Cooper medical col
lege. The argument ended in a victory
for the defense so far as the question
before the court was concerned, as
Judge Murphy sustained an objection
to question propounded by himself to
the witness and cut off discussion.
The trial began this morning with a
sensation which was quite as uneX-
pected to the prosecution as to the de-
tense Juror Truman informed the
formed the court that last Thursday,
| during the noon recess of the court,
he was approached by H. j. Mccoy,
general secretary of the Young Mems
Christian Association, who endeavored
to engage him in conversation on the
subject of the trial
IF you don't hang Durrant," said
Mccoy to the juror, I'VE will hang
you"
The court said the offense bordered
strongly on a crime and cited Mccoy
| to appear in court at noon on October
| 3 and show cause why he should not
/ be punished for contempt.
r. w. Maitland, the electrician who
testified last week with regard to the
construction 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 to show the liability of the
! escape of gas under certain conditions
| The assault on Pawnbroker Open
helms testimony then began. The de-
Tense called to the stand four witnesses
by whom it was proposed to test the
accuracy of the pawnbroker's memory.
Martin Curtis, William Cathcart, p.
j. Neumann and Leonard Everett,
members Of the national guard and the
signal corps to which Durrant belong
Gus articles Of jewelry to Oppenheim's
store and attempted to pawn them.
They described the manner in which
they were dressed at the time The
descriptions in many instances did not
correspond with the descriptions given
by Oppenheim when he was asked to
tell how the men who tried to pawn
the articles were dressed.
The next step was to impeach the
testimony of David Clark, the witness
who assisted Attorney Quinlan to fix
the date upon which he saw Durrant
and Blanche Lamont walking toward
Emanuel church. John Patten, Patrick
Mulvaney and NJ L. Murphy said that
Clarks reputation for truth and integ-
rity was bad. On cross-eXamination
Mulvaney and Murphy said they were
prejudiced against Clark from the fact
that they had had business difficulties
The district attorney asked that the
testimony be stricken out, but the mo-
ton was denied by the court The
building of Durrants alibi in contra
dictiOn of the charge made by Pawn
broker Oppenheim was begun with the
testimony of DR.. A. w. Haihalt, a lee
turer at Cooper medical college. Asked
# Durrant was present at the lecture
doctor referred to the call book and
said that the defendant was recorded
as present. On crOss-eXaminatiOn, the
doctor said he had no personal Bnowl-
edge of Durrants absence or presence.
The defense tried to offset this by ask
ing if he could give the name of any
g one of the 81 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 if he
were given time to think the matter
over.
The prosecution next attacked the re-
liability of the roll call. Before the dis
trict attorney had hardly reached the
. point of the subject, however, Judge
e. Murphy took hand in the examina-
ton. He asked the witness whether
D i'm his experience as an instructor at the
college he had known of instances
where students had answered at roll
5 call for other students who were not
present.
The defense at once interposed an
( objection and the court was placed in
the predicament of having to rule on
his own question. The judge said that
while he might permit the question tc
! be answered If it should come from
t the proper source, he would sustain the
4 objection for the present.
] Then District Attorney Barnes asked
D the same question and the defense in
terposed another objection. Attorney
, Dickinson argued that while it was
possible to call into court every student
; who attended the lecture and ask each
one if he answered at roll call for Dur.