The San Francisco call., 1897-11-12
DURRANq saved
FROM Death FOR
THE THIRD Time
Cause to Stay the Execution Of
His Sentence

that they intended to apply to the Circuit
Court for writ OF habeas corpus.
When the court was called to order Dis
trict Judge de Haven took his seat beside
Judge Morrow as associate, AMI the at,or-
neys presented the application for the
writ. The petition was volumlrous tyl e.
written document of ten pages, very yer.
bose, as required by law. and very eX-
piiclt in its statements.
1t was signei by William a. Durrant,
father of the condemned, and after his
n anne came those of John H. Dickinson,
+. n. Deuprey and l.. Ii. Boardman.
After recitIng the facts OF the conviction
and the sentences the petition went on to
allege that the sentenc. was double
Judgment, namely, that OF imt risonment
and OF capital punishment, and was con-
lrary to law. 1t was also alleged that the
matter was now pending in the Supreme
Court OF the State of California.
1t was alleged also that Judge Bahrs i'm
posed his last sentence before the mandate
of the Supreme Court of the Uniled States
had been received.
Attention was called 10 the fact that by
the laws o California the execution
should not take place less than sixty nor
more than ninety days from the date OF
jud dCment.
After Colonel D ckinson had finished
readin. the petition Mr.. Boardman ex-
planned the points suggested He in
formed the court that an appeal from the
judgment Of last April was now pending
nefore the Supreme Court OF this State.
Until that appeal had been decided the
execution should not take place.
The hour of noon having arrived the
court took recess until P. NJ.
The courtroom was crowded after re-
cess, and when tie Judg took their seats
Judge de Haven Immediately began read
ing ire M manuscript his decision. 1t was
as follows:
The application for the writ in this proce ed
ing does not present any Federal question.
TIE petition does not alleg that the supreme
Court of the United States did not, prior to
November 10 OF this year, affirm the former
order OF this court relus.n 20 issue writ of
Ia teas corpus in behalf OF W II. T. Durrant,
and indeed we take Judicial notice that such
order was affirmed 10y he supreme Court of
order having been affirmed, the Superior
court OF the city and county OF san Francisco
was not required TO wait until the Fl ing In
this court Of the mandate of tne Supreme
Court showing the flct of such affrmance.
In re Jug ro 40 |. S, Z9l.
If no judgment mad been given by the Su-
preme Court OF the United states upon the
former appea, an entirely different question
would be p esenled
The order of the Superior Court of the city
and county OF San Francisco, made on the
lotLl inst LOT the exec uuO1 OF DurrAnt on IN
II inst, may be, as suggested By counsel for
the petitioner, without preced .nt, in 50 far as
II fixes day so near at hama as the time for
such execution. But such order does not vio-
late any constitutional rights of the said Dur
rant, the judgment upon which such order
based having been affirmed by the highest
court of The ate and the Supreme Court of
the United states having determined as II did
in affirming the former order OF this court that
such Judgmen is not in violation of any rights
secured to said Durrant by the constitution f
the United States TAe question as presented
mere Is not the same as would arise upon al
original judgment or warrant fO- its eXecu-
ton, directing that a defe dant therein
should be hanged within fo1ty-eight hours
a Ter the rendition OF the judgment or the is
suence of the warrant for his execution.
The application for the writ is refused.
Then Mr.. Boardman proceeded to make
a large mum ber of motions in order 10
have exceptions to save the rights Of the
defendant. He asked first Tor permission
to appeai 10 the Supreme Court OF The
United States on assignments cf error.
Jnd.e Morrow ruled on all these mo-
tions. He said that the application for a
wr, of haoea5 corpus was without any
merit and he would deny it. Then Mr..
Boardman asked that the court sign the
citation. This Judge Morrow refused to
d.. The next offer by the counsel was
that of a bond In $500 conditioned for the
payment OF costs and damages on appeal.
Judge Morrow rejected the bond and
instructed the ERIK moi TO accept or sign
any papers whatever. To all of these
rulings Mr.. Boardman took q formal ex-
ceDtion. Then the Judges rose the law.
yers gathered up their papers and with
the spectators filed out of the room.