The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-10-02
THE EIGHTEENTH DAY.
Mccoy Indlscreet Witnesses to
Dlsprove Oppenheim's and
/ CIark's* Testinnony.-.:.->;s !: -.

= 81 . .
The fifth week of the hearing of evidence
in the trial of Theodore Durrant opened
yesterday morning. II. +. +. +.
F.. Last Thursday at noon Secretary b. J..
Mccoy of the Young Mems Christian AS
ISOLATION met Juror L. ]. Truman in a
Market-street car and accosted him with
an exclamation, the substance of which in
Juror Truman's language was:
"If you don't hang Durrant we will hang
youln
Juror Truman related the incident to
Judge Murphy. And the first proceeding
in court yesterday morning was the swear
ing of Juror Truman as witness. Judge
Murphy himself did the questioning.
Mr.. Truman said the remark was evil
IDENTIFY very thoughtless and unpremed-
Itated one and that it could have no posi-
bic influence upon him in forming his YER
dict. Juror Croker was present at the
time, but did not hear the remark.
After Mr.. Truman's testimony Judge
Murphy ordered a writ made out against
Mr.. Mccoy, citing him to come into court
tomorrow and show cause why he should
not be punished for contempt. Judge
Murphy remarked at the same time that
he was not disposed to be Ienient toward
such offenders.
The trial of Durrant for the murder of
Blanche Lamont went on. R. W. Mart
land, the plumbing expert, came back on
the stand and offered further testimony to
show that it might have been physical
possibility for Durrant to be overcome
with jgas.if he had gone into the church
alone and for the sole purpose of fixing
IL. ! l. J
the gas before going in the loft to reach
the sunburners. 1t was dusty place up
there, witness said.
=. There came quartet of witnesses to i'm
peach the testimony of Pawnbroker OPP
penheim. They were Leonard Everett.
Marion Curtis, P. J. Newman and William
T. Cathcart. All of them called upon
0ppenheim recently and offered diff
ferent articles in pawn-articles which
were shown to and identified by Open
helm upon his cross-examination.
H. Upon cross-examination Mr. Barnes
drew out the fact that all but one of these
witnesses were old schoolmates of Dur
rant, and two of them had contributed
money toward paying the expenses of his
defense.
There came witness then whose testi-
mony, it was claimed by the defense,
tended to impeach that given by Witness
Phillips, who said he saw Durrant in front
of Oppenheim's store. The prosecution,
however, looks upon it as rather a cor
roborat1on of what Phillips swore to when
he was on the stand. Patrick D. Conley is
the witness in question. He related con-
yersations he had with Phillips in relation
to the latter's testimony.
Three gentlemen from Tomales then sue
ceeded one another in the witness-chair
These were John Patten, Patrick Mulva-
ney and NJ. L. Murphy. One and all they
said they knew the witness, Clark, and
that his reputation for truth and integrity
was not good in the neighborhood of To-
males.
1t TRANSFERRED upon cross-examination.
that two OF these gentlemen had trouble
with Witness Clark's father. and that
Witness Clark owed one of the Tomales
conference.-the. Mulvaney, the saloon
keeper-an unpaid balance of So MIR.
Mulvaney also remarked that he had some
feeling against David Clark, who corrobor-
ated the testimony of Martin QuinIan as
far as fixing the date upon which the lat
ter saw Blanche and Durrant walking
down Bartlett street toward Emmanuel
Church.
With the appearance of DIR. A. w. Hay-
shalt on the witness-stand the defense be-
gan its testimony to show that Durrant
was otherwise engaged during the morn
ing hours of April between the 4th and the
10th, and therefore could not have visited
Pawnbroker Oppenheim's shop at the time
claimed.
DR.. Hayshalt brought along his rollcall
of the lecture he delivered on the morning
OF April at Cooper Medical College The
book showed that Durrant was marked