The record-union., 1897-05-15

been dismissed but that subsequently
the girls had said they did not COM
prehend the signals they had been
asked by the detective (Anthony) TO
give in case they recognized Durrant as
the man who had so ridden
Attorney Deuprey took up the evil
dence of Mrs Elizabeth d. Cossell, who
testified to having seen Durrant and
Blanche Lamont on a Valencia street
car at about $3.50 o'clock on April 8,
1885, and by tracing the line of trav-
ell, submitted that the car upon which
she had taken passage actually did not
pass the point of the school until al
ter 4 O'clock, though the witness testi-
fed to having arrived at her home
before that hour. He drew attention
to that portion Of the evidence in which
the witness spoke of the man as the
one "she claimed to be Durrant." He
contended that the identification was
incomplete and worthless, so far
as that particular witness was con-
cerned.
Governor Budd did very little talk
ing and his face was sphinx like during
Mr.. Deuprey's acute arrangement OF
facts Occasionally he interjected
question relative to the age or cond1-
ton of the witness whose testimony
was under consideration, to the place
where events were transacted or to
inquire whether certain evidence had
been brought out by direct or by cross
examination, but otherwise no intima-
ton of feeling or interest escaped him.
He closely followed the transcripts
read from by Mr. Deuprey. but from
his face the spectator would be puz-
Zled to discover whether his excellency
was thinking about the Durrant mat
ter, or the personal makeup of the
State Bureau of Highways, which he
is supposed to have under consideration.
Attorney Deuprey dwelt on the state
ments made by Mrs. Cossett, that she
was II years of age, took great deal
of medicine for heart and lung trouble,
and that she had made no statement
relative TO having seen Durrant until
long after the alleged day of her street
car ride. He asserted that the mind
of the witness had been warped and
createdly diseased by the newspaper ar
ticles she had read from day to day.
The identification by Mrs. Leitch the
attorney claimed, was such that it
would not be accepted as evidence in
any court in the land. Mrs. Leitch, it
will be remembered, testified that she
had seen Durrant and a woman enter
the church. He attempted to show to
the Governor that the suggestion that
Durrant was the man seen by the wit
ness, was derived from the force
brought to bear by detectives and col
ored newspaper articles. The identi
fication, he claimed, was based entire
ly upon superstition.
The testimony of Martin Quinlan re-
ceived short shrift at Mr.. Deupreys
hands. He said it was the testimony
of a Police Court shyster, and was not
worthy even of a second thought
The evidence of Openheim, the pawn
broker, came in for a scourging by the
attorney. He submitted that Lenahan,
the witness who testified that it was
he and not Durrant who had offered
the ring for sale, had reason for
raising the wind as he had gone
broke on the races. while Durrant on
the date mentioned, had $50 in the
bank. Lenahan, he contended, wore
a long black overcoat, and Durrant had
no overcoat of any kind.
Deuprey next took up the evidence of
Durrant and King relative to the time
the former was in the top portion of
the church, on the day Blanche La
mont disappeared, for the alleged pur-
pose of examining the gas fixtures. He
stated impressively that Durrant might
easily have passed to the library, where
his coat and hat lay, without entering
1, T.
was, but hearing the latter playing the
organ, he descended in order to talk
with him.
Next Mr.. Deuprey produced a num-
Der of bulky volumes of clippings from
San Francisco papers, taken before and
during the trial. From these he Sc
lected the one containing fac smile
cuts Of the handwriting upon the paper
in which the rings were wrapped, and
also Of similar words written by Rev
George J. Gibson, pastor Of the church
in which the body of Blanche Lamont
was found. The Governor examined
the writings critically, inquired wheth-
er an expert had passed upon the mat
ter, was informed that such was not
the case, and relapsed into silence.
In speaking of the newspaper publ
cations Deuprey said that the time
would surely come when papers would
be debarred from commenting upon
any case before or during its trial.
| and until such was the case justice
could not be expected.
The Governor interposed to state that
he had recommended such a law to the
last Legislature, but that his recon-
mendation had been ignored.
Mr.. Deuprey thought it unfortunate
that many members of the Legislature
tions.
The attorney produced and read sew
eral letters from private individuals,
one of them a minister, relating that
the enormity of the crime and the
character of Durrant We're entirely dis
similar and requesting the executive
to interpose the committing power to
save the life of the convicted man.
Next was presented the petition for
communication of sentence, signed by
about 800 San Francisco citizens, many
OF them prominent in business circles.
Mr.. Deuprey had, several days be-
fore, secured an affidavit from John
Rosenberg, now serving a term in San
Quentin for horse stealing, to the effect
that he and not Durrant had murdered
Blanche Lamont. He had held the
affidavit until near the close of his ar
- N