The San Francisco call., 1895-10-09


Witnesses for Durrant.
These are the closing hours of the de-
fense Of Theodore Durrant. Probably to-
day he will go on the stand and give his
version of the events of April 3, and it is
quite as probable that he will be the last
witness in his own behalf. Such, at least,
is the programme.
The first business of the court yesterday
was in relation to the contempt of Miss
Cunningham, the newspaper reporter, who
refused to answer Mr.. Dickinsons ques-
tion. Judge Murphy finally ruled that he
had no power to send her to jail for not an
swering the question, because the question
was not proper one.
Then several students came to the stand
to testify that DurIant's reputation-in so
far as they had any knowledge of twas
good. Some business men gave the same
kind Of testimony. And some that were
called for the same purpose could not
testify on the subject because they had not
the statutory knowledge of it--theY had
never heard it discussed.
Janitor Taber came to say that during
his incumbency at Emmanuel Church no
one had touched the ventilators, so far as
he knew-this to prove the value of the
diagram offered by the defense, which was
made in September.
DR.. Cheney was recalled to state that in
an interview with Detective Seymour be
had spoken about the rollcall of his lee.
ture. The court held the testimony to be
irrelevant and immaterial and it was not
allowed.
Two witnesses testified as to the time
consumed by them in going from Walnut
and Sacramento streets to San Jose avenue
and Twenty-ffth street. They took the
same route that Mrs. Crosett, the witness
for the people who saw Durrant and
Blanche in the Valencia-street car, says
she took on that day; and it took these
witnesses-including a five minutes wait
for the Devisadero-street car-six minutes
longer than it took Mrs. Crosett.
The point will doubtless furnish both
sides with lots of material for argument,
both claiming that it tavors their side.
1t was Leonard Everett and Marvin Curtis
who took the streetcar ride at the expense
of the defense. The former had also made
measurements of the organ which King
and Durrant carried downstairs on the
evening of April 3.
c. W. Carpenter, the plumbing expert,
was recalled to answer some questions
propounded by Juror Smyth. These
were touching the density of gas and
whether it did not go down as well as ur
when it escapes from the jet. Mr.. Carpen
ter thought it did.
n. H. F. Marshall Jr., a CALL reporter,
furnished one of the bigger points of the
day by testifying that Detective Gibson
told him on the 14th of April, which is the
day on which the body was found in the
belfry, that he saw footprints OF No.
shoe on the stairs OF the belfry. Without
doubt the defense will make the most o
this point, claiming that it shows the re
cent presence in the belfry OF man who
wore a larger shoe than Durrant-about
the size of the shoe found in Pastor Glib
sons study, in fact
Student Charles Duke said it was fact
that Durrant had asked him to testify
as favor to him that he remembered see
ing him at DR.. Cheney's lecture. This
came out on cross-examination, and wit
ness said that Durrant told him he wantec
him to swear to nothing but the truth
Then came Charles T. Lenahan, whose
testimony was originally outlined exclu
sigely in THE CALL. Mr.. Deuprey went
right at him in bold, bad way.
when did you shave off your mus
tache? 2" was his first question.
Mr.. Lenahan replied mildly that he
never had such an adornment, and he
stuck to this in spite of Mr.. Deuprey.
Lenahan is the man who took ring
like the ring of Blanche Lamont-to Pawn
broker Oppenheimer's shop on the 18th Of
April. Mr.. Deuprey did not touch upon
the date of the transaction, but Mr.. Barnes
will have a chance in the morning. The
supposition is that Mr.. Lenahan, wearing
a mustache and an overcoat like that worn
by Durrant when Oppenheimer says he
saw him, would greatly resemble Durrant.
OF course, the introduction of this testi-
lnony will be taken as virtual admission
that somebody really did try to pawn a
ring very much like Blanche's at Open
heimer's shop.
Heretofore the defense has occupied the
position of denying in toto the testimony
OF Oppenheimer, whom they will argue is
under obligations to the police. But now,
it is plain, the defense will rely upon
shaking oppenheimer's damaging evil