The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1895-10-04
TRY NEW TACTICS.
oPPENHEIMs MEMORY ASSAULTED

Four witnesses Who Say He Is Not Reli-
able I'm observation-disclosures To Show
Where the Defendant Was Each Day for
aweek Except ON That Fatal Afternoon
Not Much Progress MAde-Thug Es-
eapss Hanging.
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 2.-Aftcr gather
.ng up few ragged ends Of the testimony
left over from last week the defense In the
Durrant case began the building Of an
alibi for the young medical student from
April 4 up t. April l2 inclusive The pur-
pose Of the alibi is TO impeach the tcsti-
mony of Pawnbroker Oppenheim and w.
j. Phillips, who testified that on April l2
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 and 5 a
struggle was precipitated by District At
torney Barnes. who again challenged the
reliability of roll call book of Cooper coli
lege The argument ended in victory
for the defense so far as the question be-
fore the court was concerned, as Judge
Murphy sustained an objection to a ques
ton propounded by himself to the witness
and cut of the discussion.
Mob Spirit, Of Course, on Hand.
The trial began with a sensation which
was quite as unexpected TO the prosecu-
ton as to the defense. Juror 1. j. Truman
informed the court that last Thursday
during the noon recess of the court he was
approached by H. j. Mccoy, general Sec
rotary of the Young Mems Christian as
ISOLATION, who endeavored TO engage him
in conversation on the subject of the trial.
"If you don't hang Durrant," said Nc
Coy to the juror, 1--WE will hang YOU"
The court said the offense bordered
strongly on a crime, and cited Mccoy to
appear in court and show cause why he
should not be punished for contempt. b.
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 liza
bility of escape of gas under certain con-
ditions.
Assault on Oppenheim's Testimony.
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 Cur
tbs, William Cathvart, z. Numann and
Leonard Everett members of the Nation
al Guard and the signal corps TO which
Durrant belonged, testified that they had
taken various articles OF jewelry to OPP
penheim'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 by
Oppenheim when he was asked to tell how
the men who tried to pawn the articles
were dressed Each of the four witnesses
said he had subscribed money to assist in
the defense of Durrant.
Wanted the Testimony struck Out.
The next step was made to impcach the
testimony of David Clarke, the witness
who assisted Attorney Quinlan TO fix the
date upon which he saw Durrant and
Blanche Lamont walking toward EN-
anuel church. John Patton, Patrick
Mulvaney and NJ. j. Murphy said that
Clarke's reputation for truth and integ-
rity was bad. On cross-examination Null
vaney and Murphy said they were pre-
JUDGED against Clarke from the fact that
they had business trouble with his father
The district attorney asked that the tcsti-
Inony be stricken out, but the motion was
denied by the court
AIibi is Mighty Ragged.
The building of Durrant's alibi in con-
tradiction of the charge made by Pawn
broker Oppenhem was begun with the
testimony of DR. A. w. Haihalt, a lecturer
at the Copper Medical college. Asked if
Durrant was present at the lecture given
on the morning of April the doctor re-
ferred 10 the callbook and said that the
defendant was recorded present. On cross
examination he said that he had no per.
sonal knowledge OF Durrant's absence or
presence. 1t was here that the Judge had
TO rule against his own question, which
was as to whether the professor had ever
known of the practice of one student
answering for another at roll call. He
ruled against, he said, simply to be on the
safe side.
One Good Witness for Durrant.
With Durrant's whereabouts on the
morning of April accounted for in this
very unsatisfactory style the defense at
tempted To show where the defendant was
the next day. George A. Merrill, an in.
structor at the Lick School of Mechanical
arts said that Durrant called upon him at
ii o'clock on the forenoon Of April 5.
Asked II Durrant made known the object
OF his call he replied In the affirmative, but
he was not permitted to tell what Dur.
rant said -