The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1898-01-13

congregated court. He presented a per-
sonal petition in his own name in Dur
rants behalf, rather than to appear as
the latter's counsel. To appear in the
latter role 1t would have been necessary
for him to secure admission to the bar,
and that proceeding would have required
time which Mr. Boardman felt that he
could not afford to lose. All the members
OF the court were present except Justice
Brewer and the audience filed all the
seats and the standing room in the por-
tion of the hall outside the bar.
Mr.. Boardman lost no time in pre-
senting his prayer to the court. Mr..
Boardman began his address to the court
by saying that he realized that his
method of presenting the case as a per-
sonal petition of his own was outside of
the usual line of habeas corpus proceed
ings In this court. He briefly outlined
tence of death on the charge of murder
in California and that execution had been
set to take place today.
Il appear" he said. Sin person in be-
half of my client, who Is confined In
prison in California and who because of
this. restraint, is unable to make petition
in his own behalf"
He then proceeded to read his petition
at length, presenting the points which he
had hitherto presented to the individual
justices of the court, making application
for an appeal from the decision of the
United States circuit court for the north
ern district of California and for writ
OF error to the state supreme court Of
California, with hope of thus getting
the matter into this court and securing
stay of proceedings in the matter of
Durrant's execution by obtaining an or
der for writ of habeas corpus. He also
set forth in his action in presenting the
matter to Justice Brewer and other men,
bers of the court in their individual ca
pacity. AS he proceeded, Mr.. Boardman
was frequently questioned by members of
of the court whose questions were evil
IDENTITY directed fol-, the purpose of eluci-
to present. He said in reply to n ques-
ton from Justice Harlan that the main
point in his application for an appeal in
the habeas corpus proceedings before the
California federal court was his reliance
upon his constitutional right of appeal.
which he claimed had been denied by
the refusal of the circuit court to grant
this appeal. He also claimed that the
state court by proceeding to sentencing
Durrant to execution in November last.
before the mandate Of the United States
supreme court refusing to grant n writ
of habeas CORPUS had been received. was
a violation of the constitution and laws
and acted as n denial of the rights of
his client.
Taking up the proceedings in the Co.,
ifornia supreme court Mr. Boardman de-
tailed some of the errors alleged to have
been committed by the court, reading
literally from the minutes of the court,
closing with the presentment of the
claim that the decision Of the federal
supreme court In the Jugiro case left
no question of the right to prosecute an
appeal in n similar case.
1t was then that Chief Justice Fuller
uttered sentence which evidently fore
casted the decision of the court.
we decided In that case" said the
chief Justice, that the state courts could
proceed in such cases in the absence OF
the mandate of this court"
With this, Mr.. B0Ardman's presenta-
ton of the case closed and the court re-
tired for consideration at 1920 p. m,
returning at 1:08 o'clock. The crowd
In the court room remained during the
absence Of the court. The decision came
promptly, without circumlocution of
the court. The members had scarcely
more than taken their seats when the
chief justice announced the decision,
saying:
I'm the matter of the application for
writ of habeas corpus in the case of
Theodore Durrant, the petition to file
such application is denied by the unani-
nous OPINION or the court.
Durrant was never tried for the muir
der of Miss Williams, but the evidence
of his guilt was as conclusive as In the
Lamont case. Miss Williams lived i'm
Alameda, and on the afternoon she was
murdered Durrant was seen to meet
her at the ferry and board a west
bound car She came to this city for
the purpose Of attending an entertain
ment to be given by the church in the
evening, and 1t is supposed that when
Durrant met her he made an appoint
ment before going to the entertain
ment. At any rate, Miss Williams went
to the home of friend in this city, and
at 7:3O o'clock started for the enter
tanment. Half an hour later she was
seen standing in front of Emanuel
Baptist church, talking to Durrant. She
was never seen again alive. At $3.50
that night Durrant arrived ut the resi-
dence of Mrs. Vogel, where the enter
tainment was being given, with flushed
face and in n highly nervous condition.
He asked to be shown to n toilet room
in order that he might wash his hands,
directed him should say nothing about
the incident. When he was arrested at
Mt. Diablo, Miss Williams purse was
found in his overcoat pocket. Durrant
said he found the purse on the sidewalk
while going home from the entertain
ment. lie was seen III tnc vicinity OF
the church at II o'clock that night and
it is supposed that he went back to the
library where he had strangled Miss
Williams, and finding her breathing
feebly, cut her wrists and forced part
of her clothing down her throat. The
theory of the prosecution has always
been that Durrant murdered Miss Will
liams to conceal the murder of Miss La
mont. The two young women were ac-
quaintances, and Durrant suspected
that Miss Williams believed he knew
Miss Lamont.