Newspaper Page Text
WAS THERE BLOOD ON THE PASTOR'S SHOE?
Testimony That the
Stain Was Not
Blood.
DR. CHENEY'S ROLLCALL.
The Book Shows That Durrant
Was Not Marked Absent
From the Lecture.
MARKS ON THE BELFRY DOOR.
Evidence to Show That the Pastor's
Chisel Was Not Used— The
Defendant's Alibi.
THE DURRANT TRIAL IN A MINUTE-THE
ROLLCALL.
The testimony offered by the defense yester
day was inaini'- upon three points: Was a
blood-stained shoe fouml m the pastor's study
of Emmanuel Church? Were the marks on
the door jtunb of the belfry produced by a
.chisel found in the pastor's study? Was Dur
rant present at IT. Cheney's lecture on the
afternoon of April 3?
On the first two 7>oints Sergeant Reynolds,
Sergeant Burke, Detective Cody and Detective
Beymoi v i; h the result that Sergeant
Burke said the police had been satisfied the
stain on the shoe taken from the study by Ser
geant Reynolds was not blood, and Detective
Cody tepefied that one of the marks on the
4oor jamb was oid and covered with paint,
01 ■■• r was produced by a "jimmy."
Dr. Cheney and Student Gray— the lecturer
and the young man who made the roll
call respectively— identified the rollbook and
;rh argument on all sides the book was
admitted. It showed that Durrant was not
marked absent at the lecture. Neither of the
witnesses, however, had any recollection of
whether Durrant was or was not present at the
lecture anil Mr. Barnes gave notice that he
would call Dr. Cheney as a people's witness to
a>k him concerning the practice of students to
answer "Here" for those not present in order
t >aye their credit marks.
In the afternoon the crowd in the corridors
was so dense and unruly that Judge Murphy
ami the jurors and attorneys had to fairly tight
.. ay through it in order to gain the court
room. Judge Murphy lectured the Deputy
Sheriffs in charge and said that unless a pas
sageway was kept open the police would be.
called upon foT assistance.
Note to the Reader.— lf you wish only to
know what was actually accomplished in the
Durrant case yesterday the foregoing summary
will give yoa that information. If, however,
'-.r desire to learn the particulars of this
Interesting trial you will find subjoined a
clear, succinct, impartial account of all im
portantmatters. Under no ciieurastances will
the offensive details be admitted. They are
not essential to an intelligent understanding
of the progress of the case, and will be accorded
no place in these columns.
THE SIXTEENTH DAY.
As to the Rolicall and the Chisel
Marks on the Door— Slow
Progress.
Not a great deal of progress was made in
the defense of Theodore Durrant yester
da\-. Most of the day was spent in argu
ment between the counsel ou both sides
ami the court concerning the adnSissibility
of evidence touching two poiuts.
The first was with reference to the chisel
marks on the door of the belfry, and the
second was on the admission of the roll
call of Dr. Cheney's lecture at Cooper
Medical College on the afternoon of
Aprii 3.
It was generally thought honors were
about equally divided on these two points
between the prosecution and the defense.
It was the purpose of the defense to show
that the marks on tue door jamb were
made by the chisel found in the tool chest
in the pastor's study. To this end the door
itself and its frame were brought down
from Emmanuel Churcii and placed on
the stand, among the multitude of other
silent witnesses.
There was then a deal of questioning
concerning the?e marks— their size, their
location, tbeir description and all that —
hut in the end Detective Cody told Mr.
Barnes and the jury and the court in gen
eral that upon examination by a magni
lying-glass the first mark was.an old one
and had been painted over, and that the
second mark was plainly seen to be, when
the door was shut, the mark left by the use
of a "jimmy." So it would appear that
the chisel found in the pastor's study did
rot produce the marks on the belfry door
jamb. At least this was the last evidence
offered on the subject yesterday by the
very witnesses the defense had called
to prove the contrary.
And the end of it all was an understand
ing that when sufficient testimony has
been introduced touching the condition of
the door at present and the state of good
or bad preservation it may be in the jurors
will be permitted to examine the marks
for themselves and form their own con
clusions.
Another point that was discussed in the
morning concerned the shoes found in the
pastor's study. There was a dark spot on
one of them. But Sergeant Burke tes
tified that when the shoes were first ex
amined the police came to the conclusion
that the spot was not a blood stain and for
that reason had paid no further attention
to the shoes.
However, Sergeant Reynolds had pre
served (hat shoe. The spot was still on it.
He put a chalkmark around the spot, and
the shoe was added to the long, long list of
Btill-life exhibits.
< ame Dr. Cheney then and his rollbook
of the lecture delivered by him on the
afternoon in question. Came also, almost
at the tame moment, a lengthy argument
over the admissibility of that rollbook,
which was not concluded till late in the
afternoon.
The rollbook showed that W. H. T. Dur
rant, as Mr. Deuprey never fails to call
him, was not absent from that lecture.
That is, there is no absent mark, or A,
after his name. But neither Dr. Cheney
nor Student Gray, who made the tally and
called the names, has any knowledge of
whether Durrant was present and an
swered his own name, or whether the
"here" was called out by some one else in
the room.
As to the admissibility of the book, Mr.
Barnes soon discovered that it was not the
original book of entry, and that the en
tries had first been made on a page headed
' 'March 31." and subsequently erased and
transfened to the paire marked "April 3."
Upon these grounds he fought stoutly the
admission of the record, but Mr. Deuprey
finally triumphed, and the book went in as
evidence — or, more accurately, as an ex
hibit of the defense.
Judge Murphy remarked that in his
opinion the case was similar to that of a
bookkeeper who should have made a cor
rection in his books. And the fact is that
Student Gray was there to testify that he
made a mistake in making the tallies and
that afterward, at Dr. Cheney's direction,
he made the correction.
Then as to testing the accuracy of the
rollbook, Mr. Barnes claimed the right to
ask Dr. Cheney what his experience had
been concerning other pupils answering
for those not present. Mr. Deuprey most
stoutly denied the right of any such in
quiry. He wanted the record to speak for
itself. The court said that the District
Attorney had certainly the right to offer
proof showing the incorrectness of the
record, if he could. But the manner in
which Mr. Barnes couched his questions,
asking for the experience rather than the
knowledge of the witness, was not, the
court held, entirely proper.
Mr. Barnes then gave notice that at a
future time he would make Dr. Cheney his
own witness. By the time this point had
been reached in the day's proceedings the
hour for adjournment had come and a
recess was taken till this morning.
Prior to the opening of the afternoon
session the crowds were so dense in the
corridors approaching the courtroom and
so unruly and so entirely beyond the con
trol of the deputies and policemen in at
tendance that Judjre, juror?, attorneys and
all the court officials and attaches had to
fight their way through. They entered
the courtroom with clothes wrinkled or
torn and with collars wilted and neckties
awry, panting and showing many evi
dences of the struggle they must pass
through.
When Judge Murphy finally secured an
entrance he called for the Deputy Sheriff
in charge and lectured him soundly upon
the handling of the crowd. If the Sheriffs
office could not maintain a free passage to
and from the courtroom the Chief of Police
would be called upon for assistance, the
court intimated, in rather positive lan
guage.
Juror Smyth also entered a protest, re
marking that he did not propose, in the
future, to tight his way into the court
room.
THE MORNING SESSION.
The Marks Were Not Made by a
Chisel, Cody Testifies— Rolicall
of Dr. Cheney's Lecture.
The biggest and weightiest exhibit yet
offered in the Durrant case was produced
by the defense yesterday. When the
spectators began to crowd into the court
room in the morning they found a whole,
life-size door frame with a practical door
swinging from it. It proved to be the door
and door-frame leading into the belfry of
Emmanuel Church, taken bodily from the
church and set down near the skeleton
model of the tower and belfry that stands
in the corner of Judge Murphy's court.
Officer Russell was called upon to nail
the door-frame exhibit in a standing posi
tion by bracing it to the window casing,
and then Sergeant Reynolds, who was still
on the witness-stand, opened the door,
walked through it, looked it over and
finally identified it as the door and door
way to the belfry.
Then he pointed out the hammer mark
on the doorjamb, four inches above the
lock-plate on the right side, and about two
inches from the chisel marks. Under Mr.
Dickinson's questioning the witness
pointed out all the indentations and de
scribed them in detail. Then the witness
was asked abont the shoes found in the
pastor's study at 1 o'clock in the morning
of April 14. This was some hours before
the body of Blanche Lamont was found in
the belfry, and the police were then work
ing on the Minnie Williams case, but this
did not appear until later on.
Witness testified that he examined the
shoes found, and that one of them was
wranped in a paper and sent to the City
Hall. He did not remember who carried
the package from the church.
Juror Smythe— Did the shoes show signs of
dust, or didthey look as though they had been
worn recently? "
Witness— l don't remember that. I didu't
notice.
Dickinson — I show you this shoe; can you
identify it?
"I think that is the shoe I had wrapped up.
I think I wrapped it myself."
"Whose shoe was that?"
"I do not know."
'•Was there anything about the shoe that at
tracted your attention?"
"I saw a red or brown spot on the bottom."
"Does that spot appear there now?"
"This may be it, but I thought it was further
down. lam not certain."
"What kind of a spot was it?"
"It was dark brown and had fine pieces of
straw in it."
"Did you examine it with a plass?"
"W e had no glass there that night."
Juror t-niyth— After you found the shoes did
PROFESSOR QSA7 AND DR. CHENEI.
[Sketched by a "Call" artist.]
any one else have access to them before you
took this one away?
Witness— Yes: the next day there were others
in ther'hurch who had access to them.
Dickinson— How do you know that?
"The doors to the pastor's study were un
locked, and there were other people in the
church."
"Were the shoes left in the pastor's study?"
"Yes, sir."
At the conclusion of Sergeant Reynolds'
testimony Mr. Barnes offered the entire
door and door frame in evidence as a
people's exhibit. This was stealing the
defense's thunder and Mr. Deuprey ob
jected.
He said only the parts of the door show
ing the indentations made by the tools
should be admitted. The door was not in
the same condition as it was when first dis
covered.
Judge Murphy overruled the objection,
and the door was admitted.
At this point Juror Smythe interrupted
the question concerning the door with a
thirst for more light on the shoe question.
He asked Sergeant Reynolds whether all
the shoes found appeared to belong to the
same person.
Reynolds answered in the affirmative,
and then Sergeant Burke, who was there
when the shoes were lound, was called to
the stand.
"How many shoes were found?" asked Dick
inson.
"A couple of pairs, or more."
"Do you know whose they were?"
"No, sir."
••Did you ever learn to whom they belonged?"
THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1895.
Barnes— We object to that. It is asking for
hearsay.
Deuprey— We are only asking for what he
did, not whnt was said.
The court— He may answer that.
Witness— No, sir.
"What did you do with the shoes?"
"We came to the conclusion that the spots
were not blood, so we left them there."
"Do you recollect Sergeant Reynolds wrap
ping up one of them?"
"No, sir."
Barnes— Answer this question simply yes or
no and do not answer until the defense has had
time to offer an objection.
"Did you make this search, at the time when
you found the shoes, in relation to the case of
Theodore Durrant charged with the murder of
Blanche Lamont?"
Deuprey— We object to that as not being cross
examination, as immaterial and incompetent.
Barnes— l ask the question because the testi
mony of this witness has no connection with
this cue. It was 1 o'clock Sunday morning
when this search was made.
The court— l will sustain the objection to the
question. The motive of the search can have
no bearing at this time, and the jury knows
the time at which it was made and can apply it.
Detective Charles J. Cody was called and
sworn. He said he recollected a visit made
to the Emmanuel Church in company
with Detective Bohen and Attorneys Dick
inson and Deuprev. The visit was made
on the 18th of April, between 4:30 and 5:30
in the afternoon.
He remembered that a hammer was
found in the pastor's study in a toolbox;
that the hammer was taken up to the bel
fry-door and fitted in the indentations. As
to the chisel, he did not remember. The
SERGEANT REYNOLDS IDENTIFYING THE CHISEL OUT OF DR.
GIBSON'S TOOLBOX WHILE STANDING IN THE DOOR 01? THE
BELERY.
[Sketched -by a "Call" artist.]
■
hammer was wrapped up and taken to po
lice headquarters.
Witness then took the hammer and
fitted it to the indentations on the door
jnmh. He identified the other tools found
in the toolbox in the study at that time,
and also a small blackboard that wa6 hang
ing on the wall.
"Was there any writinjg secured in the
pastor's study?" asked Dickinson.
"I believe there was an envelope found with
an address upon it."
The tools and the blackboard were then
offered in evidence and admitted, when
Mr. Barnes asked some questions in cross
examination.
"Why did you go to the church?"
"I was detailed to go by the Chief of Police."
"At ■whose solicitation? 1 '
"Mr. Dickinson's and Mr. Deuprey's."
"Are the marks on the door arid the door
frame now in the same condition as they were
then?"
"Ye?, sir."
"Take this glass and tell me if those two
mark!", No. 1 and No. 2, which are claimed to
have been made with a chisel, are not old
marks and have been painted over.' 1
"No. 1 is painted over," said witness, after a
careful examination. "No. 2 seems to have a
rough surface."
••Now close the door and examine No. 2
again and tell me if that is not the mark of a
'jimtnie' instead of a chisel."
"Yes, sir; it is; when the door is closed you
can see that it was made by a 'jimraie'."
"Would it not nave been impossible for a flat
instrument to have made that mark?"
Mr. Deuprey objected to this as calling
for the witness' opinion. Judge Murphy
sustained the objection, remarking that
the jury could judge of that for Itself.
"Take the chisel and see if you can fit it to
those marks."
Deuprey— We object to t!iat.
Th« court— The oojection is overruled.
Witness (trying the chisel)— The indentations
are too big.
Deuprey— l move to strike ont that.
The court— The motion is denied.
Mr. Barnes— Now 1 would like to have the
gentlemen of the jury rxamine these marks on
the door before we po further.
The court— ls there any objection to that?
Deuprey— We certainly* object; the door is not
in the same condition.
The court— l will overrule that objection.
The testimony in that the door is in the same
condition.
Dickinson— l understand that on the 10th of
September Mr. Seymour and others went there
and tried the chisel in the marks.
The court— Then I should suggest that Mr.
Seymour be called first.
Deuprey— Then we want to put in proof of
how the door was torn down and rsmoved to
the court, showing that it is not in its original
condition.
The court— l will pass on that testimony
when it is offered.
Barnes— Then on my motion I will call De
tective Seymour to thestand.
Seymour was accordingly sworn. He
testified that on the 19th he and Captain
Lees and Detective Cody wejnt to the
church. They took the chisel with them
and fitted the chisel into the marks on the
door. All three of them did this in turn.
"Did you enlarge the indentations by this ?"
asked >ir. Barnes.
"I did not," answered the witness, after the
court had overruled Mr. Deuprey's objection to
the question.
Dr. William Fitz Cheney, lecturer at the
Cooper Medical College, was the next wit
ness. April 3, in the afternoon, commenc
ing at 3:30 and ending at 4:15, he lectured
on the subject of "How Infants Feed," in
volving, as Mr. Deuprey elicited, the mat
ter of the sterilization of milk.
"Was there a roll kept of those who were
present at that lecture?" asked Mr. Deuprey.
•'There was."
"When was that taken?"
"At the close of the lecture."
"Now, consult your rollbook and state if you
find the name of W. H. T. Durrant on it marked
! as present."
Barnes— l object to that until I have a chance
to asfc some questions about the rollbook.
Deuprey — We do not offer the roll in evi
| dence.
The court — But suppose the witness did not
I keep the rollbook himself?
Deuprey— We maintain that the rollbook is
! not In question at this time.
The court — You can ask him if he knows
i wnether Durrant whs present; but unless he
i kept the roil he can have no knowledge of its
' correctness.
Deuprey— l will «sk that, your Honor. (To
i witness)— Do you believe the roil is correct?
"I do."
"Upon what do you base that belief?"
"Because I questioned each pnpil subse
quently concerning his absence or presence,
and found the roll to tally with their an
swers."
The court— Then you only depend upon their
statements?
"Yes, sir."
"Were yon present when the roll was taken?"
! asked Deuprey.
"Yes, sir."
"Who called the roll?"
"F. B. Gray called it, standing beside me."
"What do you know of Durrant being pres
ent — of yourown knowledge?"
"Nothing."
"From all of your investigation, what is your
best recollection and belief concerning the ab-
I sence or presence of this defendant?"
Barnes— We object.
The cfcurt— l shall allow him to state his
recollection, but not his belief.
Witness— l have no recollection on that
point.
Deuprey — Have you not stated to me that
from your knowledge of all the facts you be
lieve the rollcall is correct?
Barnes— l object to that as an improper
statement and a.s hearsay.
The court— l shall sustain that objection.
Juror Smythe— Can you call all the students
by name?
| Witness— No, sir.
Deuprey— You knew Durrant and could call
i him by name?
Witness— Yes, sir.
Then Frank P. Gray, who called the roll
and marked the absentees, was called to
', the stand, while Dr. Cheney took a seat
j near by. Mi. Gray testified that he stood
at the left of Dr. Cheney, after the leo-
I ture, and called the roll at the direction of
j the lecturer.
"State whether or not W. H. T. Durrant is
marked present on that roll," said Deuprey.
"There is no mark after his name. Only the
absentees are marked."
"Does the roll show that Durrant was
present?"
"It does."
"Is that the book in which the roll was
called?'
"Yes, sir."
Mr. Barnes was then allowed to ask
some questions. •
""Have you any personal recollection of Dur
rant being present at that lecture?" asked the
District Attorney.
"1 iiave not."
"Can you say that you saw him there?"
"I cannot."
"Is it not a fact that this book is not the !
original book on which the roll was marked
that <lay? '
"The marks in this book were not made on
the day of the lecture."
Mr. Barnes then took the rollbook, and,
j after examining it under a glass, handed it
I back to the witness and asked him if the
absent marks had not been erased from the
page marked March 31 and transferred to
the pajje marked April 3.
After considerable discussion on all
hands, Mr. Deuprey attempting to stay the j
question, it was finally admitted by wit- I
ness cnat the roll of April 3 was by mistake j
written on the wrong page and then trans- i
ferred to the proper page.
Mr. Barnes then objected to the admis
sion of the roll because it was not the origi
nal book of entry.
Before the point was passed upon Mr.
Deuprey made further inquiries.
"Are you satisfied that the entries and marks
on the page of April «{ are correct? 1 ' he asked.
flames— We object to his opinion.
Denprcy— But you made it?
The court— Hold on, Mr. Deuprey ; there is
an objection to be passed upon. There is plenty
■ of time.
Deuprey— But we
The court— The objection Is overruled, and
we will now take a recess until 2 o'clock.
THE AFTERNOON SESSION.
More Discussion of the Rollbook.
Which Is Finally Admitted as
Evidence In the Case.
In the afternoon, after Judge Murphy
; and the jurors and the lawyers had fought
! their way through the howling mob out
< side, the court called in the Deputy Sheriff
I in charge and administered a lecture which
I will probably prove beneficial in making
i ingress and egress to the courtroom at
i least safe, if not an agreeable procesu.
Judge Murphy said that he had been
compelled to tight his way through the
crowd, and said that one of the jurors had
made a complaint that he could not get
into the courtroom.
"I see him here, now, your Honor," said
the Sheriff.
Juror Smythe— Yea, but I had to fight
my way in, anyhow.
The Judge instructed the deputy to keep
the entire corridor clear of all persons ex
cept such as had connection with the case.
"And," concluded Judge Murphy, "if you
can't, do so I'll call upon the Chief of Po
lice."
Mr. Deuprey then again offered the roll
call book as evidence of the defendant's
presence at Dr. Cheney's lecture.
Mr. Barnes objected and was permitted
to ask some further questions of Student
Gray.
"You say that you were too busy to write up
these names during the month of March?"
"I had been too busy."
"When did you write these names In the
book?"
"To which names do you refer?"
"The names of the students in the month o!
April."
"I cannot fix the date."
"Can you fix it approximately?"
"No, sir."
"Were they written in the book between the
3d and (sth oi April of this year?"
"I believe they were, sir."
"Was it the 3d" 4th, Oth or 6th?"
"I cannot say positively. I should say it was
written on Friday evening. April 1."
"Mr. Gray, did you have a conversation with
me last nieht, and did you not state last night
in the office of the Chief of Police that you
kept a record of the attendance in the rollcall
book by making a straight line when a man
was not present?"
"I think we had a conversation of that
kind."
"Did I not ask you whether the tally mark
which Indicated that Durrani's name had been
answered in the lecture was in your handwrit
ing? and did you not inform me that you
could not tell because it was simply a straight
line?"
"Yes, sir."
"Did you not state to me in the office of the
Chief of Police, in the new City Hall, in this
City and County, in the presence oi myself, of
Captain I.ees and Mr. Seymour— did "you not
state that you could not tell whether or not
the present'mark for Durranton the 3d of April
was in your handwriting or not?"
••] really do not remember having mentioned
Durrant's name in regard to that point. I re
member you asked me a question as to wheth
er I could identify it, and 1 saio. it would be im
possible because it was merely a straight line."
"How soon after the 3d of April did you
chance your system of keeping the tally-roll?"
"The 'change whs made at the beginning of
the next term, in June."
•'Why did you make the change?"
"For the reason that a question had been
asked in regard to the marks from other par
ties.'"
"Was not that change introduced on account
of ihe errors that had been made by the other
system?"
"No, sir. Not because of errors, but because
of the liability to error."
The witness here stated that he con
sidered the former system of keeping the
tally-roll one that was very likely to lead
to errors.
•'Do you know Mr. Ross?"
"Yes; I met him in Sacramento."
"How long have you known Mr. Ross?"
"About three years."
"How well have you known him?"
"About as weil "as many other members of
the class."
"Have you discussed the subject of the roll
call with Mr. Ross?'
"I have no recollection of having done so."
"Now, as to the erasures. Are there any
other pieces where similar ones have been
make?"
"The same thing happened last June."
After some questions concerning the
erasures made In June, Mr. Deuprey again
made offer of the rollbook as evidence.
Barnes— l object again to the introduction of
this rollbook, because the evidence is that this
is not the book of original entry, and that the ;
I entries made In it concerning "the attendance I
I on the 3d of April were transferred from an- |
j other page to the one where they are now found. I
Therefore, we hold the roll to be in no sense a
record of the attendance that day, and hold it
to be irrelevant and immaterial.
The court— The evidence is that these en
tries in doth cases were made by the witness;
that they were first made on a wfone page and
subsequently changed by the witness 10 the
proper page." It seems to me an analogous case
would W that of a bookkeeper who should
make an error in his books ana then correct it.
In that case, although the erasures could be
considered by the jury, it could hardly be held
that Die books were not admissible. I believe
■ this to be the proper view of the matter and
I will admit the roll.
Deuprey— Have you any recollection of Dur
rant being present?
v No, sir."
"Have you a recollection of any of the other
seventy-four students being present?"
"I could not swear as to any of them."
Juror Smyth — In whose charge is th« roll*
book kept?
Witness— ln mine. I keep it at home. Some
times Dr. Cheney borrows it to examine.
Deuprey— ls this the only record of attend
ance kept?
Witness— Yes, sir.
The court— l want to understand this matter
fully and to have the record show It. Do you
have any way of knowing who it is that an
swers to the name called? Can you tell
whether it is the proper person or whether
some one else answers for the name that is
called?
Witness— l have no means of telling who
answers.
Deuprey— But hasn't an examination been
made of all the seventy-four members of the
cliss? And was not the result of that exam
ination that no one could be found who an
swered for Durrant?
Barnes— We object.
The court— You may bring all the seventy
four members here and ask them, but you
can't ask for this witness' opinion.
Deuprey— Then 1 will ask you, Have you
made uny such investigation or has any one
for you?
Witness— No, sir.
"Did you answer for Durrant?" then asked
Deuprey, as though he were starting in on the
task of interrogating all the seventy-four mem
bers.
Dr. Cheney then came back on the
• stand. Mr. Deuprey asked him whether
Mr. Gray came to him and asked him about
the mistake made in the rollcall, and
whetiier he had then instructed Mr. Gray
to make the necessary change or correc
tion.
Mr. Barnes objected to this, and the
court said it plight b? answered in so far
as witness might have directed the correc
tion.
Witness answered that he did order the
correction made.
"I told him to make the change, and he
afterward told me he had done so, said wit
ness.
Juror Smvth— When was this done?
"On the 3d of April."
'•At your lectures is there any confusion that
would" prevent a proper hearing of the roll
call?" asked Deuprey.
"Xo. sir."
"Did you have a conversation with General
Dickinson last Friday concerning this mat
ter?"
"Yes, sir."
"Did you not say to him in the presence of
j Durrani—"
Mr. Barnes (interrupting)— l object to any re
mark made to General Dickinson as being
irrelevant.
Judge Murphy— l think the objection proper.
Mr. Deuprey— Did you not say to him that
your rollcall "was correct, and from your inves
tigation that it was your opinion that W. 11. T.
! Durrant was present at your lecture on
j April 3?
District Attorney Barnes objected to this
question, and his objection was sustained
by Judge Murphy. Thereupon Mr. Deu
j prey offered to frame the question in
another manner.
Mr, Deuprey— At that conversation at your
office on Friday last, when General Dickinson,
one of the counsellor defendant, and myself
were present, did you not say to him that you
I were satisfied that your roll was correct, and
i that you were satisfied that Mr. Durrant was
present at your lecture?
The District Attorney again put in an
objection on the ground that the question
: was incompetent, irrelevant and hearsay.
Upon Judee Murphy sustaining the objec
! tion the defense took exception to his
i Honor's ruling.
The court— The reason I sustain the objec
tion is because, in my opinion, it tends to
elicit something which is in the nature of
hearsay.
Mr. Deuprey— How many students have you
in your class, doctor?
"About seventy to seventy-four."
"That is ail."
Upon cross-examination Mr. Barnes
offered witness a paper containing, in type
writing, the names of the members of Dr.
Cheneys class on April 3, and asked him
to mark off on it the absentees.
Mr. Deuprey wanted to see the paper
first. Tnen he objected to it on the ground
that it might not be a correct list.
Judge Murphy said the witness could
pass upon that point.
Dr. Clieney said it was correct, and then
checked off the absentee s.
Mr. Deupray wanted the paper then
marked for identification. Mr. Barnes did
not. The court held that the District At
torney had a perfect right to make what
use he pleased of the paper, and offer it or
not.
" How long have yon .been an instructor at
the college, doctor?" asked Mr. Barnes.
" Nearly six years."
"What has been your experience, during
that time, as to students answering present for
those who were not present, aud as to the
monitor marking those present on the role
who were not in reality present?"
Deuprev— We certainly object to that.
The court— Upon what grounds do you offer
the question, Mr. District Attorney?
Barnes— To attack the accuracy of the roll
call and to lay the foundation for introducing
evidence of particular instances.
The court— l will sustain the objection to the
question as propounded.
"I will withdraw the question In that
form," said Mr. Barnes. "What is the length
of time of study before a student receives his
diploma? "
"Four years."
"Are the men in your class three-year men,
or four-year men?"
"Three-year men."
"Was the defendant a member ol the senior
class?"
'•He was."
"Now, during the past year, what, if any
thing, was your experience in regard to
students answering present for other students,
and as to the monitor marking present those
who were not present?"
Deuprey— We object to that because of its
multiplicity, Decanse it is unintelligible and
confused, and because it is not material and is
incompetent.
The court— As I understand it, you offer the
rollcall for some purpose. The reason the roll
call is introduced is to prove whether or not
the dependent was present at Dr. Cheney's
lectnre on April 3—
Mr. Deuprey (interrupting)— lf yonr Honor
please, you have misstated my position. My
proposition is this: I have introduced this
rollcall, and this witness has testified that »t is
correct. I have no objections to the District
Attorney asking witness if he c.in show any
places where students have answered for
other students when in fact those other stu
dents were not present. I do, however, object
lo questions which do not in any manner re
late to the subject-matter of this rollcall.
The court— The District Attorney's object is
evidently to show that the defendant wa* not
at that lecture on the 3d of April. Now you
(the defense) offer this roll as veritable proof to
show that the defendant was present on that
occasion. The District Attorney has the rierht
to show that it is an incorrect rollcall. The
only question in my mind is whether the lan
guage used by the District Attorney properly
frames the question. If the question was one
relating *.o an experience the experience might
ba based on hearsay, and that would be im
proper. If you desire to ask this gentleman if
students have answered "Present" for others
who were not present, just for the purpose of
saving their credit, that is another matter.
For this reason I sustain the objection.
Mr. Barnes consulted for a moment or
two with Mr. Peixotto and then said he
would go no farther in this direction at
present, but would call Dr. Cheney as his
own witness.
Court then adjourned until this morning.
DANGEROUS PUN.
Boyi Place PUtol Cartridges on the
Streetcar Tracks.
Boys bent on mischief find a deal of
sport in placing pistol cartridges on the
car tracks, so that passing streetcars will
explode the powder. The practice is quite
common of late, and if something is not
done by the police to check it, some one
may be killed or badly wounded. Day be
fore yesterday, on Mission street, between
Third and Fourth, one of the horses of the
United Carriage Company exploded a
cartridge by striking it with his foot .The
bullet perforated the hoof of the horse,
which would have died from the loss of
blood if surgical assistance had not been
cahed.
The boys fancy that it is fine fun to see
the conductor and streetcar passenpers
jump when the explosion takes place, but
the so-called fun is attended with great
danger.
The CruUer Philadelphia.
The United States cruiser Philadelphia will
sail for Puget Sound to-morrow. On the cruise
there will be target practice at Port Apgeles.
The cities of Seattle and Tacoma will be
visited by the cruiser.
/^^o^\ THE MORE OF THESE
#THE MORE OF THESE
YOUR BOY GETS THE
vl^^^l/ BETTER HIS CHANCE
\^®^y TO WIN A BANK BOOK.
3 With every purchase of $2.50 or more
we give a Metal Souvenir. To the three
boys who bring us most of these souve-
"D ID T*7t7O nirs before November 2d we will give
rfll£iCO three bank books as above, deposited in
--^ -I Y"V/-V The Hibernia Bank.
q> 1 UU — —
$75 IF YOUR BOY
tf>r— O Needs a suit of clothes or any
■<P.QvJ.--- part of it bring him to us, the
Wholesale Makers. Our stock
is far and away bigger— our
prices simply the Wholesale
ones. The saving to you
amounts to — X/S-
Wholesale Manufacturer*
Props. Oregon City Woolen Milk
Fine Clothing
For Man, Boy or Child
RETAILED
At Wholesale Prices
121-123 SANSOME STREET,
Bet. Bush and Pine Sis.
ALL BLUE SIGNS
HARPER'S MAGAZINE"
CAPTAIN A. T. MAHAN, U.S. N. O
tells about - . , C
The Future in Relation to American 2£
Naval Power T
,- . - ■*■ ■liCkV d I : oi^ \j ff v • m ~
o
v f>K "Alone in China" B
The first of a series of Chinese tales _■
By JULIAN RALPH -^
n
THREE ORINQOS THE GERMAN -, PERSONAL RECOL- >\. MM ■
; N STRUQGLE FOR LECTIONS OF WW
CENTRAL AMERICA LIBERTY JOAN OF ARC ■■
" Hindoo and Moslem." by EDWIN LORD WEEKS. "At the Sign of the g^j
Balsam Bough," by HENRY VAN DYKE. " Queen Victoria's Highland ' ■■■_;J
Home," by J. R. HUNTER. " Hearts Insurgent," Short Stories, etc. B ■
Now Ready ~
D
HARPER & BROTHERS, Publishers, New York
WILL STORM THE CITY
Mrs. Ballington Booth Coming
to Address the High and
the Low.
JOY AMONG SALVATIONISTS.
Will Be Heard !n Universities,
Churches, Halls and at a Mid
night Meeting:*
Mrs. Ballineton Booth, wife of the
leader of the Salvation Army in America,
will address all classes and conditions of
people on her visit to this City. She will
arrive on the morning of the 17th of Octo
ber and it is expected that on the afternoon
of tuat day she will address the Chamber
of Commerce and in the evening there will
be a demonstration of welcome at Metro
politan Temple.
On Friday, the 18th prox., she will hold
councils with officers of the Salvation
Army in the parlors of Golden Gate Hall,
and in tie evening there will be a meeting
at Golden Gate Hall for which a limited
number of invitations will be issued. On
Saturday afternoon she will attend a sol
diers' council at 1139 Market street, and
on that evening there will be a second
meeting at Metropolitan Temple.
After the theater-goers have deserted
' the Orpheum the army will take posses
! pion and hold a midnight meeting, such as
j are held in various parts of the City, in
order to draw attendance from the low
j resorts. This novel feature of army work
I was but recently inaugurated in California.
On Sunday morning and afternoon Mrs.
Booth will address audiences in Calvary
Presbyterian Church and in the evening
at the First Congregational Church. She
will visit the Lifeboat and Children's
Home on Monday and will give an address
before the Charming Auxiliary.
She will j.peaK to the students of Stan
| ford University in the afternoon and at
i the First Presbyterian Church the evening
|of Tuesday, the 22d. She will be accorded
! a reception by the Century Club on
Wednesday afternoon, and that evening
will again address an audience at the First
| Presbyterian Church of Oakland. Thurs
j day will be spent at the Beulah Rescue
; Home, Friday afternoon at the State Nor
i mal School at San Jose, while in the even
j ing she will address the First Congrega
tional Church at Santa Cruz.
It is probable that she will speak to the
Woman's Christian Temperance Union of
San Jose on Friday afternoon and at the
Auditorium in the evening. She will also
speak in the Baptist Tabernacle of that
town on Sunday, the 27th. The next day
she will leave for Sacramento.
Mrs. Booth's visit is in lieu of the divis
ion inspection usually made by the gen
eral.
Slmmen's Legal Troubles.
The divorce suit of Elizabeth vs. Kasper
Simmen was before Judge Seawcll yesterday,
and to-day the partnership troubles of Ka.=per
Sirnmen and Robert Scholz will be aired in an
other department. Scholz denies Simmen's
charge that he tried to defraud him.
5
