The San Francisco call., 1897-03-04

as has been said, when the jury was finally
completed there remained to the defense
unexercised eight of lis twenty emptory
challenges. The ruling by which the prosecu-
tion was allowed TO interpose the peremptory
challenge worked no hardship 10 the defen.
dant. His right was to fair and Impartial
jury, not to a jury composed of any particular
individuals. Where it appears that fair and
impartial jury was obtained it is the general
rule that an error OF the court in allowing q
challenge aud permitting juror 10 be ex-
Gus is not subject to review. (Territory VS.; VS.;
Roberts, 8 Nom. IL; State VS.. Kleuman, 80
Mimi. BAL; State vs.. Chin Ling, 10 Or. 4l9;
Snow v. Weeks, rs No.. 1903; Thompson vs. vs.
fla 55l IS State m VS.. Vs. Ward 4 SO Vt. 32s; Nat
son VS.. The State, SO Md, 543; 1atan VS..
Young. Porter, Ala. 293; Richards VS.. The
State, Nebr. 53 n. w. Pop. 1o29.)
1t cannot be said under the circumstances
shown that any injury resulted to defendant
from the ruling or tnat any abuse OF dl>cre-
ton is shown. People VS.; Arcot, 90 Cal, 4o:
People vs. Murray, 80 CAL, 500; People VS..
Murphy, As Cal. 1879
The Evidence Justifies the Verdict.
The contention of appellant mex. to be con-
sidered is that the evidence is insufficient to
Justify the verdict, ana that the verdict is
contrary TO the evidence in this, that the evil
dence fails to show how, when or where
Blanche Lamont was murdered, or that the
defendant in any way was instrumental In
causing her death.
No small part OF appellants argument herein
the witnesses for the prosecution. In this at
Ia ok the personal characters OF many are as
sailed, and the unreliability of the evidence
of nearly all is insisted upon. 1t here again
becomes necessary 10 repeat that these argu-
ments touching the credibility OF witnesses,
eminently properto be addressed to the jury
or 10 the Judge upon motion for a new trial,
are not for our consideration. This court sits
in criminal cases solely for the correction OF
errors at law. II in any criminal case there
be evidence adduced logically tending and le-
gally sufficient to prove the guilt OF defend
ant, this court cannot and Will not disturb the
jury's determination, even under claim that
there is conflicting evidence which might
have raised reasonable doubt of his guilt.
The province of the jury in weighing evil
dence and deter mining the credibility to be ac-
corded the tes limony of witnesses isunder the
rules of law conclusive. A Judge may not In
struct upon matters of fact. Ii witness
should absolutely discredit his own testimony
by swearing TO opposite statements, so that
one or The other musI be false, under our laws
his testimony is not OF necessity to be rejected.
1t is sull evidence IN the case. Under such cir
cumstances the jury must receive and weigh 4.
They are bound to look upon IL with suspicion
and distrust and may reject il. But, upon the
other hand they may as they determine accept
as true one or the other OF the contradictory
asseveratons. Thus, upon n review Of the evil
dence by this tribunal We may not examine
with minuteneSs claims that witnesses are dls-
credited, or that their evidence is unworthy
of belief, or look TO see whether some other
conclusion might not have been warranted by
the evidence. blythe VS.. Ayers, 1o2 Cal, 254l:
Ad questionem juris respondeani JUDGES, ad
queslionem faci respondeant duratores-and
than this no maxim OF the old law has been
more carefully pres served in its integrity under
our system.
Where it is not clear that the verdict must
have been rendered under the influence OF
passion or prejudice, our examination OF the
record is only 10 determine whether legal evil
dence has been offered sufficient 10 warrant a
conviction, for the verdict of the jury is their
declara tion that i, is this evidence which has
been by them accepted. People VS.. All 10y,
10 Cal, 301; People VS.. Vance, 21 CAL, 400;
People VS.. strong, 30 Cal, 151; People VS.;
Dick, 80 CAL, PA; People VS.. Manning. 4S
Cal, 335; People VS.. Estrada, 53 Cal, 600;
People vs.. Mayos, 90 CAL, 597; People VS.. All
Jake. 81 Cal, %; People vs. Freeman, 81 Cal,
359)
Facts of the Murder.
The following facts were presented in evil
dence: Upon April 8, 1895. Blanche Lamont
was living with her aunt, Mrs. Noble, in the
City and County of San Francisco. She was in
person rather tall and slight, and weighed
about 100 pounds. Her sge was Il years. She
was schoolgirl attending the High school,
and upon the morning OF April 3 left her
home. with her strap of books, to join her
classes She met defendant lille on the way
to school such is his testimony and
he accompanied her for part of
the way She was at school during
the days session, and at its close. about 3
P. NJ left with the other pupils She did not
return home, and never after that day was
seen alive. Shortly after 9 o'clock upon the
morning of April Ii TWO police officers and the
janitor attempted to open the door leading TO
The belfry of the Baptist Z Emmanuel Church.
They were prosecuting a search for Blanche
Lamont The knob of the door was gone and
tie lock mutilated so that the janitor's key
could not open it. Tney forced the door
and one of the officers ascending the stairs
found the body of girl lying on the top
landing, in the southeastern corner OF the
belfry. 1t was that of Blanche Lamont. The
body was naked, lying upon its back, the feet
close together, the hands folded upon the
breast, the head inclined little 10 the left.
There were two small blocks apparently en-
ployed to hold the head in an upright posi-
ton. Decomposition was well advanced, and
by medical testimony life had been extinct for
a bout two weeks. An examination and
autopsy of the corpse revealed seven finger
nail incisions upon the left side OF the throat
and five upon the right, depression of the
larynx and congestion OF the traehea.
larynX, lungs and brain. Strangulation was
the cause OF death. search brought to light
the clothing and apparel of the girl hidden in
and about the rough underworld of the belfry
and also her bookstrap and schoolbooks.
Arrest of Durrant.
Upon April - the defendant was arrested
and charged with this murder. At that time
Durrant was young man "a years of age,
student of the Cooper Medical College of San
and a member of the Signal Corps
Of the National Guard OF the State. He was
in religious work, Was an attend
ant, if not member, of the Baptist Emman-
uel church, was member OF the Christian
Endeavor Society, was assistant superin tie nd
ent of the Surday-school, and was librarian of
the church library. As is abundantly testified
TO, he bore the esteem OF his fellows as a zeal
Gus, earnest and upright young man of COM
mendable character, and OF sincere Christian
life. When arrested he was upon service OF
the Signal Corps to,which he was attached.
Upon his trial his defense was an alibi. He
declared that he ad seen Blanche Lamont in
the morning OF April 3. when she was on her
n hfrf in fhara ftor ar
he himself had gone to his medical College,
and there had attended a lecture at the time
when By the claim of the prosecution the girl
had been by him murdered IN the church.
Upoa the part of the prosecution it was
shown that Blanche Lamont was regular at
tendant of Emmanuel Church, and belonged
to the society of Christian Endeavor, OF which
Durrant was also a member. The two were
well acquainted. Indeed, they seemed TO
have stood in their intercourse upon terms OF
cordial and trusting friendship. They met at
social and religious gatherings, to or from
which Durrant frequently escorted the girl, in
company with her sister and others OF their
social circle. Durrant had key to the side
door of the church, and was thoroughly fami-
liar with the building ana premises.
Some Important witnesses.
Mrs. Hugh vogel lived across the street from
the school which Blanche Lamo Mt was attend
ing. She saw defendant little after 2 O'Clock
OF the afternoon OF April 3, in front of the
schoolhouse, walking up and down, apparently
in waiting. When school closed she noticed
two girls coming out together. One OF them
carried books in strap. They walked to the
corner Of the street. where they stopped for
q car. The defendant joined them as they
were about to board it. One of the girls went
inside. The other sat outside upon the dummy.
the defendant joined this girl and seated
himself beside her.
Minnie Edwards testified that 1t was she
who accompanied Blanche Lamont from
school that afternoon. They were Joined by
Durrant at the corner. Blanche Lamont and
he sat together outside, while she found
SAINT within the mont had