The San Francisco call., 1897-12-25
Juror Cited for Con-
tempt Of Court.
Horace Smyth, Who Is Accused of
Having Been Swayed by Other
Influences Than Evidence,
Must Explain Tuesday,.

Apparently there is no end TO senSa-
tions in the Durrant case. When the
latest appeal of the convicted muir
derer of Blanche Lamont was virtually
thrown out of court and Superior
Judge Bahrs sentenced the prisoner to
be hanged January it was supposed
that nothing more need be done, that
the law, so long impeded, must take
its course to the fall of the trap.
But Durrant's attorneys seem to
think that where there is life there is
hope Yesterday they filed a petition
and affidavit from the father of Theo-
dore Durrant, the effect of which was
an order from Judge Seawen for Juror
Horace Smyth to appear before the Su-
perior Court December IS to answer
to a charge of contempt. This order
and affidavit divested of some legal
verbiage, and with certain imprint
able portions eliminated, are as fol-
lows:
Upon reading and filing the affidavit
and petition OF William a. Durrant in
this matter, and on motion of John II.
Dickinson, Esq, an attorney of this
court, and of W. w. FOOte. Esq, of
counsel in said matter, and good cause
appearing therefor, it is hereby ordered
that said Horace Smyth appear before
this court at the courtroom thereof, De-
partment No 6. in the new City Hall in
the City and County of san Francisco,
State of California, on the 2Sth day OF
December, 1897 at the hour of 10
o'clock in the forenoon of said day, then
and there TO show cause. if any he has,
why he should not be adjudged guilty OF
contempt of court and why ne should
not be punished for contempt of court
in having, as alleged in said affidavit,
while acting as a juror in the trial of
William Henry Theodore Durrant, re-
ceiVed and acted upon information fur
niShed TO him from sources outside of
the testimony and proceedings in the
trial of the sand William Henry Theo-
dore Durrant for the murder of the said
Blanche Lamont, as more fully appears
and is set forth in the affidavit of the
said William a. Durrant.
And it Is further ordered that this or
der, together with copy of the said affi-
davit, be served upon the said Horace
Smyth as soon as practicable hereafter.
Dated San Francisco, California, De-
]. NJ sEAWELL,
Presiding Judge.
The affidavit itself is of considerable
length, the gist of it being below:
William A Durrant, being first duly
sworn, depOses and says: 1 am the father
of William Henry Theodore Durrant,
hereinafter named as defendant, who, on
the 22d day of May 1895 was accused by
the District Attorney of the City and
County Of San Francisco, by informa-
ton filed in said court, of the crime of
1elOnN, IO-WlI, QuIQGI, III lIle kllllnS OF
one Blanche Lamont on or about the
Sd day of April, 1895, at the city and
county of San Francisco. That there
after and on or about the 18th day of
May, 1895, the said defendant was ar
raigned in said court and entered plea
of mot guilty"
That thereafter, and on or about the 22d
day of July, 1898, the trial OF said de-
fendant was commenced in the said Su-
perior Court, and a jury was duly and
regularly impaneled, of which jury the
Il-,-, TTraI
juror was duly sworn to try said mat
ter, and sat as such juror throughout
the trial thereof and joined in the YER
dict of guilty brought in against the
said defendant by the said jury.
That during the trial of said action, and
at each adjournment thereof, the said
jury. and the said Smyth as one thereof,
were regularly admonished by the court
as required by law not to converse with
or suffer themselves to be addressed by
any other person on any subject of the
trial, and not to form or express any
opinion as to the merits thereof until the
case should be finally submitted.
That Notwithstanding such admonltlon
the said Horace Smyth, while acting as
such juror, as this affiant is Informed and
believes, and upon such information and
belief alleges the facts to be, did form
an opinion as to the guilt of the said de-
fendant while the said trial was coins
on, and the opinion so formed was that
the defendant was guilty OF the crime
with which he was charged, chiefly for
reasons hereinafter stated. and that
never appeared, neither were they re-
ferred to during the trial of the said
cause in any manner, except in argument
at conclusion of all testimony taken.
That affiant only received this infor-
nation within the last three days, and
that this information has been received
by and from reputable persons, residents
of said city and county who aver that
they heard the said Smyth make the
charges above set forth, and all the
statements connected Herewith.
That each and every of the charges
and statements as to the affiant
are wholly. totally and absolutely false
and untrue. and there has never beer
any foundation whatever in truth or ir
fact for the making by any person or per-
sons of any such allegations or charges
Wherefore affiant prays that the SAID
Horace Smyth be cited TO appear before
this honorable court at a day and time
to be fixed and show cause. If any he
has, why he should not be punished foI
contempt of court.
WIN. A. DURRANT.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
4th day Of December, 1897.
J. NJ. SEAWELL.
Judge Superior Court in and for the City
and County of San Francisco, State OF
California.
JOHN II. DICKINSON.
Attorney for Affiant.
w. w. FOOTE. of Counsel.
The matters eliminated from the affi-