The San Francisco call., 1897-12-09
Even His Attorneys Admit That
Their Clients Time Is
Short.
The BEGIyN NG OF THE END.
Judge Bahrs' First Order of Execution
Now the Ruling Feature of
the Case.

Ehe motions to dismias are denied.
The order in case 3OS is affirmed; the
order in case 35S is reversed and
the cause remanded to the Superior
Court, with directions to proceed ac-
Cording to law. 1t - further ordered
that the remittiturs issue forthwith.
Beatty, {. j. We concur: Henshaw,
u; Temple, j; Mcfarland, j.; Harri-
son, j.
Unless Governor Budd interferes in his
behalf Durrant is doomed. By its decision
yesterday the Supreme Court of California
has cleared the case of the egal points
which for months have befogged the main
issue of his guilt or innocence, and now
It needs but another sentence by the Su-
perior Court TO lead him TO the gallows.
By the decision rendered Yesterday
there remains, legally speaking, but the
unexecuted sentence of death passed by
Judge Bahrs on April 10, 1897, TO be en-
forced June II. This order or judgment
has been tfirmed; ell wrils OF probab bic
cause depending upon it have been de-
nled-and properly, so the court says
and il needs but the resetting of the day
to lead the demon of the belfry' to the
reward of his crimes.
Even Durrant's attorneys admit that his
chances now are few and shadowy. Said
Mr.. Boardman of Durrants counsel last
night: The District Attorney has only
to move to set day for sentence and the
court has only 10 pass sentence. II it be
done on the lines indicated by the Su-
nrsm, Cour;, l fear there is no further
hope in the State courts
sentence OF death?"
Mr. Boardman shook his head, doubt
fully. Il do not see what else they indi-
cate" he said, slowly.
81 do not deny" he continued, 'that
this decision is unexpected. Nor do I
deny that 1t greatly narrows Du1rant's
chances. Further than that, however, 1
cannot say"
The points jus decided are to the lay
mind, rather complicated. Durrant was
sentenced TO death By Judge Bahrs on
April 10, 1897, the date of execution to be
June IL, and in the meantime lie was TO
b closely confined in San Quentin. An
appeal was taken, the grounds being that
close confinement and hanging made a
dual punishment ething clearly un-
constitutional.
Before June IL the Federal courts were
appealed 20 WIFE a negative result and
again on November 10 last Durrant was
consigned TO the gallows. This time he
was given two days grace, with the close
confinement clause once more added.
A writ OF probl bic cause blocked the
execution Of the sentence, and again
there was an appeal on the same ground
OF dual punishment as before. Il Is these
two appeals and two motions TO dismiss
them which have been disposed OF.
At the suggestion Of the court counsel
for the State confessed error in the appeal
from the sentence OF November 10 and
without opposition allowed the motion to
dismiss 10 be denied. This allowed the
court to decide the appeals Oh their
merits.
The order OF November 10, designated
as case 358, was reversed, thus annulling
the sentence and eliminating that phase
OF the case from consideration.
Then the sentence OF Apri! 10, desig-
mated as case 308, was affirmed, estab-
fishing udge Bahrs' first sentence as legal
and just. AS the date of execution has
passed 1t needs bu. a resentence and once
more Durrant vii. have started gallows-
ward.
In part the decision OF The court was a,
follows:
On December the Attorney General, upon
notice TO counsel for defendant, moved O dis
miss both appeals upon the ground mat The
days respectively fixed by the orders anne ed
from fo- carrying the sentences OF death into
lenger OF any force, and the questions invo.ved
were moot questions not Calling for iurther
consideration by the court
But the court being OF the opinion that the
appeals ought not TO be dismissed and thA I
there were some i'm pOrtant points OF practice
involved which ought to be settled by a speed v
decision, 1ntlmated that opinion from the
bench, Whereupon the Attorney General
fered to submit the second appeal (the first.
as stated above, was submitted in November
upon a confession OF error IN the order aI-
pealed from, and asked an early decisio on in
DO tn cases.
1t is commended that the court ''erred in re-
fusing TO inquire in TO the facts OF the record
and III refusing to have proof made OF the
condition OF the record, and the fact upon
which The court might act IN the premises, as
provided by law"
This disposes of all the points involved in
the first appeal and shows that the certificate
ofprobabIe cause was properly denied and that
the order should stsn1 affirmed.
1t is contended that NOT only the order of
April 10, 1897, but the original judgment a so