The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-01-08


nfty men armed with wincEestors any
driven to the city prison. Durrant ther
protested his Innocence. IA he did TO tn,
hour Of his death. but the evidence agains
him accumulated RAPIDLY. and on April 2
an Information was filed against him b,
District ATTORNEY Barnes charging him
with the murder OF Blanche Lamont.
The trial, which began on July % and
lasted until November j. Was ono OF the
most celebrated In criminal jurispndence.
Nearly 1900 talesmcn we're examined be-
fore a jury was secured and six weeks
passed before the taking OF testimony was
began. The evidence throughout was cir
cums;antiai. but when taken together
formed chain SO strong us TO admit OF no
reasonable doubt. The prosecution pro-
duced witnesses who traced Durrnnts
movements on April 5 from the time he
left Cooper Medical coileso until he en-
tered the church with Miss Lamont. To all
OF this testimony the prisoner entered q
denial. and Ia rcbuttal produced the roll
caii OF the college, which showed that he
WAS attending lecture " the hour when
Miss Lamont was murdered.
Tho prosecution disputed the reliability
OF the roll call and showed that students
We're accustomed to have class mates am
swcr tor thcm when they were not pres
;,nt AS the case became more ,iopoiess
Durrant won't on the stand himself. aud,
although he maintained a remarkable COM
posuro throughout his testimony, on a
number OF important points, was palpably
false. Tho case was submitted to the jury
on the Afternoon ON November /. 1895,
after having becn on trial over three
months. Twenty minutes after they left
the court room the jurors returned and
a nj Al ltx. IL ~ n...t
degree. The California law gives the jury
power TO fix the punishment Of the Grim
inal, but as no recommendation OF mercy
was made, Judge Mnrphy. a few. DAYS
lNer. sentenced Durant to DO HANGED on
February n, 1896,
Then began fight for delay, vigorously
maintained for almost twenty months. not
even ceasing with the execution of the
death sentence. Durrant appealed from tho
Judgment. TO the supreme court. hut his
appeal was not perfected for many months.
preliminary proceeding was the settles
ient OF the bill OF eXceptions--u very
lengthy document.
The defendants attorneys first prepared
'hcir bill of exception; the district nttor-
ncy added amendments thereto, thon fol-
lowed frequent meetings OF opposing coun.
document was read by the court and glvcn
TO the printers. but 1t was August 1. 1896,
before the bill of exceptions and the trans
crlpt OF testimony reached the supreme
court The case was then placed ON the
supreme court calendar, and NJ Los An
gelSs. IN the following October, the de-
fendant's attorneys not appearing the case
was ordered submitted on the papers filed.
Durfants attorneys subsequently moved
to sci aside the submission, and thuy were
allowed TO file briefs but were permitted
to make no oral argument Attorney Gem
eral Fitzgerald filed II brief In reply. Dur
rants attorneys answering the attorney
general In another brief. aud the case was
not really under submission until jan
nary, 1881
The supreme court affirmed the decision
If the superior court on March 3, 1897, and
within ten days--i G., on March I3--Dur-
ants attorneys filed petition for re-
hearing. The application for a rchearlng
vas denied by the supreme court on April
!. ard the following dny a reini,titur was
landed down 10 department three of the
hyperion court ordering thai court to pasa
inal judgment,
Superior Judge Bahrs of department. three
liked Saturday, April 10, the day for pass
NIX sentence. and on that date Durrant was
esciltenced and ordered TO he hanged At |
I'm Quentin State prison on Friday, juno |
as taken from the county iail. whore he |
ad been confined ever since he was held |
O answer to the police court. and taken 10 |
an Quentin
Every effort was then made 10 induce
governor Budd to grant clemercy. but
Without avail Durrant was put in the
ondemned cage and Heath watch placed
II him. On June 3 the attorneys of the
ondemned man applied 20 the United
orpus. alleging that he had been deprived
liberty without due process OF law In
ialatIon OF the provisions OF the fourteenth
mendment 10 the constitution OF the
United States. The application WAS re-
iscd and appeals were taken to the United
iaies circuit court, and then TO the su-
rene court Attorney General Fitzgerald
cid that undcr section 76B OF the Revised
latutes this appeal might be held 10 act
5 d stay of execution and advised post
onement of the hanging. Accordingly
oYernor Dndd granted reprievp. post
,ning the execution 10 July D. On that
ate no attempt was made to carry ant the
gatli sentence, the case Blil being before i
no court OF last resort. On October ~
ttorney General Fitzgerald appeared be-
ne the supreme justice and asked that
le Durrant case be advanced on the cal
ldar. The brief Of the prisoners atior-
eys rnds n pamphlet OF no pages and
,ser every pcint In the case. The fu-
renl' urt. In brief opinion read by |
hirf Justice Fuller, affirmed the decision
the circuit court IN denying the writ OF
lbeaB corpls Attorney General Fit1gor- Ii
Id Immediately telegrdphed from W:kh- ,
gton TO have Durrant executed at once |
ithout waiting for the mandate Of The
'urt- lie was taken before Judge 3shra
the superior court aud .esantnnccd to
hanged November H..
The LAWYERS hurried to the circuit court
here they tried TO secure writ which 1
ould prevent the carrying out ~ The son ,
nee. They were refused hearing. but i
once broughF-,lie matter np before the
ipreme court OF the state ana secured n /
rit 81 probable cause, and an order To !
e warden at San Quentin not 10 execute :
o prisoner until notified IN the future. |,
he supreme court then reversed Judge :
AIRS second orGeT. affirmed the first and
tad h. 49,