The San Francisco call., 1897-03-04
WITHIN THE
GALLOWS'
SHADOW
The Supreme Court Decided
Against Durrant
Yesterday.
JUSTICE BEATTY DID NOT
SIGN.
He Is Now Preparing a Separate
Decision, to Be Handed
Down Soon.
WILL APPEAL TO THE FEDERAL
COURTS.
Justice McFarland's Views-The Pris.
ouer Refuses to Ste Rspor ters.
The Grieved Parents.
WILL APPEAL TO THE FEDERAL
COURTS.
Justice Mcfarland Views-The Pris.
ouer Refuses to See Repor ters.
The Grieved Parents.

"We find no errors in the whole case
which would substantially pref I'd o the
rights of the defendant
Only one sentence, shor. and worded so
as to be easy of com prehension by child,
yet it sealed the fate of w. II. t. Durrant
and marked him as with the brand of
| Cain for the gallows.
| At last the slowrevolving wheals of JUS
tice have done their work and by the final
decision of the Supreme Court OF the State
of California the murderer of Blanche
| Lamont and Minnie Williams viii meet
| his deserts.
AS soon as the decision left the hands of
| the Supreme Court Justices, about 4 P NJ.
yesterday, the news was telephoned to
Chief Jailer Satler at the County Jail.
Proceeding to the cell of the doomed man
he informed Durrant of the decision
reached.
What is that? Who said sop asked
| the prisoner eagerly. for moment drop
ping that habitnaI air of coolness and
| bravado which has distinguished him as
one of the most remarkable criminals Of
| the century.
Satler informed him that the news had
| just been received from the clerks office
of the Slprems Court, and that there
could be no doubt as to its authenticity,
In spite OF this Durrant was 10th to be-
lieve that the court had decided against
him.
When he came to realize Its truth, he
made the request that no reporters be adj
mitted to interview him. To this resolve
he firmly adhered, and refused to hold
any conversation at all with press repre-
sentatives.
The decision was signed by all the court
except Chief Justice Beatty. When the
Chief Justice was questioned in regard to
his refusing to sign the decision, he said
II canno state why I refused to do so,
for the reason that l am at work on q
separate opinion, now nearly finished. I
| do not care to say whether it concurs or
not. However, as the majority of the
court was in favor of denying the iudg-
ment and appeal, there was no use in my
| delaying matters"
| Justice Mcfarland wrote short con-
curing opinion, although he had already
signed the principal decision. He said it
would have bsen more satisfactory if the
| trial had been held where the force of
| public opinion was not so strong. The
main decision was written by Justice
Henshaw.
| The trial of Durrant for the murder of
| Blenche Lamont was one of the most
| famous criminal cases in the history of
| the country and consumed many months,
| He is also accused of the murder OF Min
ME Williams, both occurring in the
Emmanuel Baptist Church of this City.
Every effort possible was made to save
the accused murderer by his counsel,
Eugene Deuprey and John Fl. Dickinson,
but the skein of evidence was too COM
plete and woven in too strong and skilIful
manner by the District Attorney.
The case WAS tried before Judge D. j.
Murphy, whose rulings on technical
points were SO just that the Supreme Court
could find no flaw. Durrant was convicted
and petition for new trial was denied.
Counsel for Durrant took an appeal from
both the judgment and denial of a new
trial. Although the public has i'll great
measure paid little attention to the case of
late owing TO the great lapse of time it
has engrossed the attention OF the court
in bank for two weeks. The consideration
of the arguments presented crystallized in
yesterday decision.
I'm Bankl
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff and Respondent, Cr;n
VS.. IL,
W. H. T. DuRRANr No. 1s6.
Defendant and Appellant,
The defendan convicted of the murder of
Blanche Lamont, prosecutes these appeals
from the judgment and the order denying
him a new Trial.
Reviewing the specifications of error in
their natural sequence rather than in the
order OF their presentation in argument, the
| first which invite attention are defendants
list of trial jurors had not been selected or re-
turned as required by sections 2O4-2O9 OF the
Code OF Civil Procedure. In support OF this
claim he offered the record of the proceedings
of the Judges OF the Superior Court in the
matter This record, Kept by the secretary of
the Judges, was incomplete. Under direction
| of the presiding Judge the secretary amended
| showed a compliance with the law. The pre-
81 ing Judge likewise testified to the facts at
tending the selection and listing Of the trial
| iurors from which it appeared that the pro-
ceedings OF the Judges were due and regular.
DEFENDANTS claim that the original minutes
Of the secretary were the sole evidence admls-
sfble upon the question cannot be sustained.
rect its records to make them eomport
with verify. (Kaufman VS.. Snain, Ill CAL,
16l The secretary's minutes are now made
exclusive evidence of the proceedings they
undertake to record. 1t was the duty OF the
trial Judge to determine the facts, and no bet
ter evidence could have been offered than
that of the presiding Judge himself. an actor
in and creator OF them.
The further objection that the Judges failed