The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-22

Durrant Described as Possessing
the Ferocity of a
Tiger.
Ten Days Time Given the Defense
10 Answer ard Then ths Case
Will Be Considered.


] neys was admitted to filing in the SUI
preme Court yesterday. At the same
time the brief of Attorney-General Fitz-
gerald, which has been prepared jointly
by the Attorney General and by Assistant
Attorney General Anderson, came in for
fling. stipulation was submitted under
which the Attorney-General agreed that
the brief for Durrant should come i'll and
that ten days time and no more should be
allowed the defense in which to answer the
Attorney The order of submits
sion was not set aside. The effect of this
is that the court will decide upon the
merits of Durranrs appeal Tor new trial
within ninety days from the date of that
order, which was October q last.
The substance of the brief prepared by
the attorneys for Durrant has previously
been published IN this paper. With that
brief and the brief of the Attorney-Gen-
eral, fled yesterday, the record is, in the
main, practically made up, and Durrant is
now face to face with what may be The
last chance for his life.
The Attorney General in the opening
had the following to say in his briet:
At the very threshold of the case we are met
with an elaborate discussion of the evidence.
TINS discussion is opened by counsel Tor APP
pellant with the assertion that 1.-The verdict is
contrary to the evidence and the evidence is
insufficient to justify the verdict" With this
for their text they assert a number of particu-
lars in which they consider the evidence lack
ing. Evidently assuming that this court is a
second jury, exercising all jury's functions,
they proceed TO discuss III detail, not the sufi-
cheney OF the evidence, but the eredibility of
the witnesses VINO supplied the evidence.
Their brief i'll this particular is a virtual con-
cess ion that ii the jury was justified in believ-
ing the witnesses tor the prosecution the les
timony given by those witnesses is sufficient
to justify the verdict; but they say that those
witnesses are not worthy OF credence and that
the jury should not nave believed them.
The principal contention OF the aDpe.la rs
counsel In this behalf is that each and all OF
the numerous. witnesses for the prosecution
who testified positively TO the defendants
whereabouts and movements on the afternoon
OF April 3, 1898, must necessarily have been
suffering from species of mental aberra ton,
or NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. fever OF the magma
tion-because their testimony fatty contra
diets the unsupported ties timony of the de-
fendant himself to his whereabouts and
movements on that fatal afternoon. The tes-
timony of the other witnesses for the prosecu-
tion is disposed of upon hypothesis equally
satisfactory to counsel for appellant
All this of course, has nothing whatever to
do with the legal suficiency of the evidence.
Its weight and the credibility OF the witnesses
we're Tor the jury. If they believed it this
court cannot disbelieye it. The sole question
for this court, so far as the evidence is con-
cerned, is: Conceding the truth of that which
tends to connect the defendant with the CON-
mission OIL the OuenSe charged, is II, being
true, sufficient in the law to sustain the YER
dict OF the jury? That this question should be
answered in the affirmative fully appears from
consideration of the evidence itself.
All the testimony and all the exec ptions
taken by Durrant's attorneys were care
fully reviewed. Concerning Durrant's
movements the Attorney-General said:
Thus ell through this April afternoon the
defendant, VINO believed that he had brought
u "a unObSerVaQ n
scene OF her death, was watched by many
eyes. They were eyes that had apparently
| hnd nothing in common either with each
| other or with the defendant or the deceased
ewes of the curious old German woman, who,
| afraid of burglars and restlessly on the look
! out for stray housebreakers, earnestly watched
! and carefully noted every N ovement OF the
| strange young man who for nearly an hour
| waited impatiently for Blanche Lamont in
| front of the Normal school = eyes of
| the deceased schoolgirls acquaintances
who noted the defendant car efully,
! because he was the young man with
! the new student - the eyes of Mrs
Crossett, who watched the defendant and hi:
young lady companion as closely as possible
! for as many blocks as the streetcar carried
| him and the unsuspecting girl nearer anC
nearer to the dreadful goal-the sharp-sighted
! lawyers eyes as he passed the young couple,
on the way TO keep an appointment, and was
! attracted by the unusual manner in which
| they were walking, and finally, just the de-
| PENDANT is about to enter the gloomy church
| with the deceased, where he can perform the
deed unseen by any but the All-seeing, he
| passes under the eyes OF Mrs. Leake, watching
at her window for her daughters return. All
| of these-the suspicious old woman at her
window on Powell street, the schoolgirl
| curiously observing their fellow-student
companion, the old lady returning HON,
| from day spent with her daughter anC
granddaughter, the passing lawyer and Mrs
Leake at her window opposite the church
were unconscious actors in this grim tragedy
Each going his or her several way, unknown
| to each other, and unknown to or needed b,
the two central figures carried away in his o
| her memory fragments OF a chain of circum
stanees-broken links of fact-which whel
pieced and welded together at the trial lei
| frresistibly to the eliminating fact that de
PENDANT and Blanche Lamont entered tn
church together by the side door between
| and 4:30 O'clock on the afternoon of April 8
| 1895.
Blanche Lamont never left the church alive
In less than three-quarters of an hour defend
| ant was murderer. Alone and unseen in thu
deep silence OF the empty church he had com
| mitted a brutal crime with the dellberatlol
and ferocity of tiger.
Under the 90-day rule the decision o
the Supreme Court is due before January
81, 1897, but it may be delayed.
MouIton Is Chairman.
y n H.