The San Francisco call., 1897-11-11

that physical fact formed no part of the
record.
judge Bahrs said he would make no
ruling on the objections until after he had
called on the defendant to answer why ne
should not now be sentenced. At sign
from bailiff Durrant stood up and
Judge Bahrs said:
William Henry Theodore Durrant, you have
been brought INTO court i'll pursuance OF an
order made Dy me, upon the application OF the
District Attorney OF this city and county.
judgment of death was heretofore on De-
cember q, 1895, pronounced against you ior
the murder OF one Blanche Lamont on the
third day OF April, 1895, in the city and county
OF Sau Francisco, state OF Callforn ia, OF Whlch
crime you were duty conVlc,e ed on the nFst dhy
OF November, 1895; as appears by the remit
tl.ur from the supreme Court OF the state ol
California, now on fi.e in this court, said judg-
ment ana the order denying you new trial
were affi rme by said supreme Court.
Said Judgment still remaining in full force,
the law requires me now 10 inquire into Inc
facts, to de ter1lne II any legal reason or
reasons exist against the execution OF the
Judgment OF death heretofore pronounced
against you.
Therefore, William Henry Theodore Durrant,
now ask you TO state any legal reason you
may have why the court should not proceed
to make an order directing the sheriff oil the
city and county of san Francisco to deliver
YOU TO the Warden of a State prison, and fur
ther directing said Warden to execute, at u
time now 10 be fixed by me, the judgment OF
death heretofore pronounced against you.
Durrant sat down without uttering q
word, and Mr.. Dickinson arose TO address
the court. He made much the same argu-
ment as was presented In his opening re-
marks, adding that there is st,il an appeal
TO the Supreme Court Of this State pend
ing in this case, and in his opinion that
operates as stay in the execution OF this
courts order.
That has been decided against you"
replied Judge Bahrs.
Mr.. Dickinson further asserted that no
remittitur has been received from the
Supreme Court OF the United States, and
that this court has no power 10 proceed
until that mas been received.
Mr.. Deuprey supplemented Mr.. Dickin-
sons argument with an eloquent appeal
for the observance OF what he considered
The proprieties In such proceeding. BE
insisted that the defendant was legally
entitled 10 thirty days in which the re-
mitiituI might come down from the Su-
preme Cour- OF the United States, and
boldly challenged the right OF Judge Bahrs
to 60 ahead at this time unless he chose
to disregard the lawful rights OF the de-
fendant. He drew attention 10 the fact
the defendant had made an affirmative
showing TO the effect that no remittitur
had been received and that therefore this
court was without authority, its authority
There was no proof that the appeal Is not
still pending in the highest tribunal os
the land. & Geographic com mmunlcation
touching this matter is OF no effect and
the court had no right to take cognizance
of such thing even Ii IL had been filed
in tne case.
Attorney Boardman spoke in a similar
strain. He began to 20 over the ground
that the sentence of i'm prisonment at San
then
IL was delivered by ex-Judge Murphy, was
in reality double sentence and was there
fore null and void, but he was stopped by
the court, who said there was no use TAX
ing up more time discussing a proposition
that had already been ruled on by the
Supreme Court and on which the Judge
here had made up his mind.
Mr. Boardman replied that be realized
the futility of addressing Judge who had
already determined what decision he
would give.
Judge Bahrs explained that this is an
important case and if was natural to sup
pose that he had given 1t the consideration
IL deserved.
District Attorney Barnes had not said a
word up to this time. He now arose and
said he was willing to submit the matter
on the argument made by the defendants s
attorneys. He asked the court to take
into consideration the fact that a long
time has elapsed since Durrant was con-
victed of the crime charged against him.
and that in naming the day when the SEN
tence of the court shall be carried out,
that as early day as possible, under the
law, should be selected.
Mr.. Deuprey responded warmly that as
the defendant still contends that he is in
nocent he was entitled to a proper time in
which to present lis appeal to the Su-
preme Court and 10 guard his rights the
same as any other citizen might do, this
court had no legal power to invade those
rights.
Judge Bahrs replied sharply that more
than two years have elapsed since the de-
fendant was convicted and he believed it
was about time for the law to be vindi-
Gated. Durrant again stood up and the
Judge SAID: