The San Francisco call. [volume], April 24, 1895, Page 5, Image 5

About The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913

Image provided by: University of California, Riverside; Riverside, CA

                
THEO. DURRANT IS AGAIN BEFORE THE BAR
Trying to Show That the
Police Have Been
Overzealous.
BERKELEY'S BLOODY COAT
The Woman With Whom It
Was Left Still Thinks It
Was the Prisoner's.
MEETING OF THE STUDENTS.
Many of Them Think Durrant At
tended His Class— The Lights
In the Church.
The center of interest in the double mur
der has shifted from the ch\irch on Bart
lett street to the Police Court, where Dur-
Tant passed the second day of his prelim
inary examination yesterday. The dese
crated shrine is practically left to it- grue
some self, and only strangers in the city go
to the Mission to gaze at the tall belfry
in which Blanche Lament's body was
found on that Easter morning that will be
remembered with a chill of horror by
•rs in this city. Men, won i and
ren pass the structure while I ie sun
:s shining, but after nightfall they s ~m to
prefer the otner side of the street
The evidence against Darrant, .riven
piecemeal in the papers, is being t>M in
the court, and among those in whom it
apparently produces the least mental per
turbation is the prisoner himself. He is
an enigma, a monster of crime and de
y cr the most cruelly wronged man
United :r:ate« to-day.
The police say that the chain of evidence
that binds the prisoner is complete. The
I confident, but the police
doubtless know more about the case than
they have told, and it is said have evi
dence which they will withhold until the
trial in the Superior Court.
The bloouy coat found in Berkeley is
6till a cause of excitement in the I'niver
• own, but there is after all little or
nothing to show that the garment was
Durra
NEW EVIDENCE.
Second Day's Proceedings in
Durrant's Preliminary
Examination.
There was no apparent abatement of the
-i taken in <he Durrant case when
the doors of Judge Conlan's court were
thrown open yesterday morning for the
second day"s proceedings on the prelim
inary hearing.
Tue same curious, eager crowd surzed
and jostled in the corridors, waiting to
catch a glimpse of the prisoner, a:
same morbid throng besieged the officers
at the doors of the courtroom to gain ad
mission to the interior.
A? on the first day, the spectators within
the judicial, and to many sacred, precincts
Ige Conlan's court were largely com
cf women, and hundreds of their
less fortunate sisters loitered round the
entrances to the hall and mingled with the
3 throng in the corridors.
All were anxious to get sight of the pris
oner as he was being escorted from b
Prison to the rack of bit
tal torture and to hear the oft-repeated
testimony bearing on his presum;
guilt. Mrs. Williamson, the yoar.j
gious fanatic, whose presence in the
the day before created such a comr
was seen in the vicinity of the ball
the police took good care that she d
egam gain acc«ss to the interior ani seek
to cxc. .■■ute any more of her aLegec
commissions.
The prisoner made his entra
at a few minutes before 11 o'clock ani took
a seat between his attorneys, <i
Dickinson and Eugene Deopre'y. T:.
: .ch has shown itself in his fa ■
Knee his incarceration had ai:
peared and a slight snggi
noticeable in his countenance at
\:p with something akin to anima
he was engaged by those about him v
quent co:. eyes. too. had
• .uch of Their cold indifference
previous day and at
shadows of animation over b
face. • 'therwise he was the same cc
lected individual wil
has become so well a
A change was .
in hi; attitude towa: rneys. He
eeems to be getting bettc
the debonair Dickini
learned Deuprey. When
server his interest, in the procee
might appear to be feigi.
he was in fact
closely, and several til _• the exam
ination it was notic . .
with his attorneys and was app;
coaching them as to
knowledge bearing on the testimony
ite<l from certain witnesses.
For the first time during theexai
tion the defense yesterda
■ to the policy to be carried out in • .
up its case.
As will be seen by a perusal of the testi
mony, the defense, in its cro.==-t
--of witnesses for the peopi* 1
.information which should ha
bearing on the theory that the |
been overzealous in disco
for the prosecution and in the -
Ing of doubting and uncertair:
This vrae demonstrated on sever;,
during the proceedings yeste-
Btubborn objection of the attorn*
defense to any patchwork evidence si
into coherent wholeness by the r
tion and the police.
At 10:45 o'clock the leading figure*
trial were all in court and the exam.
w-as reopened.
The first witness to take the stan
Harry Partridge, a medical studc: •
'siding at 7_'7 Shotwell street.
"Do you know Theodore Durr
asked Mr. Barnes.
"Yes. sir."
"Do you sit at lectures with him?"
. r. "
"On the Bth ol April what did you
Durrant ?"
"At Dr. Hirschfelder's lecture on that
day I answered for Durrant."
"What is the object of the mlicali?"
"To see whether the students ar
there?"
"Why did you answer his name for him"' '
"Because he requested me to."
•What did he say to you when he i
you to answer his name for him ?'
"We object, 1 ' said Mr. Dickin
. "Objection overruled," replied the court j
"I «3o not remember his exact w
He simply asked me to answer •:■
for him."
"What time was the clinic held?"
0:30 o'clock on the morning of the
'When was the second clinic held ?"
••♦Between the hours of 10:30 and 11 :30 "
rrant present at either of
"He was not."
After some further questions the witne-s
was turned over to the defense but
rants counsel declined to put any ad*,. |
flops and moved that all his testimony be
stricken out.
The motion was denied.
Charles A. Dukes, another medical stu
dent, was next called.
"Did you meet Durrant on the afternoon
of April 12?"
"Yes sir."
"Where was that?"
"I saw him as I was passing the ferry
depot while with a friend named Dodge."
•Did you hold any conversation with
him?"
"I did ; yes, sir."
"What did he say?"
"I don't know that. I can't remember
his exact words, but he spoke something
about waiting for his companions in the
N. O. C. Signal Corps and their proposed
trip to Mount Diablo."
"Did he say anything about the clinic
lectures that day— Friday, the 12th?"
"Yes. sir: he asked if we had been there.
He did not say anything about not being
there himself". He asked us, however, if
we would answer for him at the lectures
the next day. as he would be away on the
work of the"signal corps."
On cross-examination, Mr. Dickinson
asked only one question as to the train
witness had taken to Oakland.
Witness replied that Dodge and himself
had taken the 3:90 boat.
tzence Dodge, another medical stu
dent, was c^
"You were with Student Dukes at the
Oakland ferry on Friday afternoon, April
12?"
"I was; yes, sir."
"Did you see Durrant at that time?"
"I did', sir."
"What did he say to you?"
"He spoke about school work and asked
us if we had attended tne lectures that
day, and wanted us to answer for him at
Dr. Plumber's lecture the following day."
Witness" evidence in all iespeets corrobo
rated that of the preceding witness.
Miss Emma Btruren was the next wit
ness to take the stand. She said she re
sided at 212 Twenty-sixth street.
"On the evening of Friday, April 12. were
you in the neighborboood of Mission and
Twenty-second streets?'
"Yes, sir; between 9 and 9:30 o'clock."
"How far is your home from the corner
of Twenty-second and Mission streets?"
"About five blocks."' .
"What happened there? '
"I was with my sister and the Misses
Fitzpatrick, when a man came up the
street and svoke to my sister and Maggie
Fitzpatrick. "
"Did you hear what he said?"
"No. sir; the other girls came tip and
told ns he had — "
•Wait one minute," interposed the de
fense.
"Did you hear him speak to them your
:>ked the court.
"No, sir."
"Let that be stricken out, then," re
sponded the court.
"You saw the man, though, did you
not?" continued Prosecuting Attorney
Wakeman.
"Yes, sir; I saw his back. I could not
get a look at his face."
"Could you recognize how he was
dressed?"
"I think so."
Witness was shown Durrant's overcoat
and hat and she said it looked like the
coat and hat worn by the man who ad
dressed her companions.
On cross-examination witness was sub
jected to a close interrogatory by Attorney
DicKinson.
"You say you did not hear what the man
said to yourcompanions?"
■"No, sir."
•You did not see his face?' 1
"No, sir."
"Have you talked to any one about this
case?"'
"Ye«. sir."
"Have you conversed with any one of the
officers or detectives?"
■Tea, fir; with Detective Codv."
"When was that?"
"I/9?t Sunday evening."
"Where was that?"
"In a room in this building."
"What was done there?'
"I was taken into another room and Mr.
Durrant was brought in to see if I could
identify him."
"Did Durrant have this coat and hat on
when the detective brought him into the
room where you were?"'
"Yes. sir. That is the same coat and the
same hat he had on when they brought
him in."
"Did you say anything to Mr. Cody be
fore you met him in the Chief's office last
Sunday night?''
"No, sir."
"Was there any statement made to you
as to why you were wanted to come down
to theCitv" Hail?"
"Yes, sir. Detective Cody was at the
house in the afternoon and left word that
I should come down here in the evening."
"Had you gone into the other room next
to the Cniefs office when the other girls
arrived?"
"Yes. sir. I was in the second room
when the other girls arrived."
•Who suggested to you that you see if
you could recognize Durrant from the de
scriptions of his appearance you had read
in the papers?"
"Detective Cody."
"Were the othef young ladies ©resent
when Durrant was brought in with his coat
and hat on?"
"Yes, sir. One of the girls suggested
after we had .looked at hi? face that his
back be turned to us and that his collar be
turned up, to see if we could not recognize
him better.''
On the redirect, Mr. Barnes asked if any
one had visited her last night.
•Yes, sir." she replied. -'Detective Cody
came there."
"Did any one else call there?"
'Yes, sir; some lawyer, but I was not at
home."
"Did he leave a card or did you learn
who he wa? ?'
This was objected to on the ground that
! the witness was not there and could answer
only from hearsay.
Tne objection was sustained.
Edna Lucille Turner of 2602 Howard
street was the next witness on the stand.
"Do you know the Theodore
Durrant?" asked Mr. Barnes.
"Yes, sir; I have known him for nearly
a year."
•Are yon a member of the Emmanuel
Baptist Church?"
"Yes, sir. 1 '
"Are you a member of the Young Peo
ple's Society?"
"Yes, sir."
"Did you ever walk home with Durrant
or did be ever walk home with you from
-hurch? :>
The defense objected on the ground that
the question did not have any relation to
the matter undfr investigation.
The objection was overruled.
"Did he ever walk home with you from
hurch at any time prior to the 12th of
l P ril? " • „
"Yes, sir."
"Did you ever walk home with him
-.•hen any thine out of the usual occurred?"
Another objection was made and over
ruled.
"\'ou may answer." said the court.
"I do not know that anything unusual
"curred," responded the "witness, speak
ig slowly and thoughtfully, "except that
c spoke to me in a manner that I did not
approve."
•What did he Eay to you?" continued
' : r. Barnes.
Again an objection, and Mr. Dickinson
: plained his reasons therefor, the same
;linp wa? made.
11.' spoke to me about an examination,
ud the witness. "He asked me if I had
er had an examination made and asked
I would let him examine me. I told
* m I bad not and did not care to have
vthingof the kind."
■Di<l he say anything to you about a
where such an examination could be
.lie by him?"
\'r« ' sir. He suzcested the church —
Emmanuel Baptist Church."
it was an examination of a private
personal nature, vras n not?"
Yes sir; and I told him that ray people
could attend to all inch, matters."
THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 1895.
"Can'you remember at about what time
the conversation took place?"
"No, sir, I cannot. It was several
months auo."
On conclusion of the direct examination
the defense moved to strike out all the
witness' testimony.
The motion was denied.
Attorney Dickinson then took the
witness.
"Where were you when the conversation
with Durrant took place?"
"When we were returning from church."
"Were you in the habit of associating
with Durrant after that conversation
occurred ?' '
"Yes, sir. I spoke to him in a manner
that I thought would not attract attention
and make people believe that anything
had taken place between Durrant and my
self."
•'Were you as intimate with him as
before?"
"I do not think I felt as free with him
after that. 1 '
"Did you ever speak to any one about the
talk Durrant had with you?"
"Yes, sir; I spoke to my aunt, Mrs. Dr.
VogeJ, the day that Miss Williams' body
was found."
"Did you ever speak to any one else about
your talk with Durrant?"
"To my cousin, Mr. Vogel, and to two or
three ladies who were in the room with my
aunt and myself when we happened to be
conversing on the subject."
"Did you ever talk to Mr. Durrant about
the examination incident?"
"No, sir."
"Did you ever converse with Durrant
prior to the time you say he wanted to
make an examination relative to yonrcon-
dition ; did you ever answer any ques
tions he asked" you concerning your physi
cial condition? 1 '
"On paper, yes, sir."
"How long before was that?"
"I cannot say exactly."
'What do you mean by saying you an*
swered questions on paper?"
"I mean that he gave me a sheet of pa
per on which he had written a number of
questions and that I wrote the answers un
der them and handed the sheet back to
him."
•Is this your writing. Miss Turner?"
said General Dickinson, handing the wit
ness a sheet of common notepaper closely
written on both side:-:.
"Hold on, there ; let's see that before the
witness answers," shouted Attorney
Barnes.
'■We have a right to get the witness'
identification of her writing without your
seeing it," responded General Dickinson.
"If we introduce it in evidence then you
can <«cc it and not before."
•'Yes, that is my writing," said Miss
Turner, after a close and slow scrutiny of
the paper.
It was handed back to the defendant's
leading counsel and the prosecution's
curiosity had to go unsatisfied for the
With the dismissal of the last witness
from the stand the court adjourned until
2 r. M.
The soldierly form of the white-haired
captain of police detectives, Lees, was a
conspicuous figure at the afternoon ses
sion. Primed with suggestions for Barnes
and Wakeman, he occupied a seat with
the prosecution, and throughout the hear
ing illuminated legal lore with practical
hints drawn from a fund of experience
such as few police officials possess.
Considerable new evidence was offered
during the afternoon.
The proceedings were opened by the call
ing of J. E. Hodgdon, freight claim ad
juster of the Southern Pacific company, of
109 Bartlett street, to the stand.
"Where were you on the evening of
April 12, between 8 and 9 o'clock?
"1 was about my place. Soon after
8 o'clock I came out of my gate and
started for the cigar - store on Va
lencia street. I saw a young couple stand
ing near my gate. I thought the young man
was taking liberties with the girl, and my
first inclination was to go up and strike
him. But as I got closer to them I saw
that he had hold of her arm and was ap
parently coaxing the girl to go some
where."
"Could you recognize the man you saw
there?"
"No, sir."
"Could yon recognize the way the man
was dressed?"
"I think I could. He had on a roundish
hat; I could not say whether it was a stiff
or a soft hat. If it was a soft hat it was
not indented in the top. The overcoat he
wore was long."
"Was it like this?" showing him Dur
rant's coat.
"It looked much like it, but I could not
be certain. I saw Durrant with the coat
on in the Chiefs office last night."
"Did you think you recognized Durrant
when he had the coat on last night as be
ing the one you saw with the girl near
your gate?"
"Well, the young man I saw last night
(Durrant) displayed too much shirtfront —
that is, the young man I saw near my gate
did not show as much shirtfront. He also
seemed to me to be three inches shorter
than the man near my gate." •
'•Do you think you ever saw the man
before ? r '
"Yes, I think I have seen him, but I
could not swear to it."
In order to illustrate the condition of his
mind with regard to Durrant's identity
witness went on to say, with permission of
the defense, of course :
"If the paymaster should come to me
and say a man named Durrant had a war
rant for 525 to cash and that it was the
man whom 1 had seen near my gate, and I
was asked if I could pay the same on the
strength of such a recognition, I should be
compelled to say no."
George W. Burges, a medical student of
Cooper College, residing at 725>£ Grove
street, was next called.
"Do you know whether or not," asked
the prosecution, "Theodore Durrant was
at the medical clinic on Friday, April 12?"
'lie was not."
"That was Dr. Hirschfelder's clinic?"
"Yes, sir."
"Was he at Dr. Ellinwood's clinic the
same day?"
"He was not."
Frank Sademan, the janitor of Emman
uel Baptist Church, was called. He was
examined by Prosecuting Attorney Wake
man.
"Do you know the defendant, Theodore
Durrant?" was asked.
"I have known him a little over two
years."
"On Friday, April 12, were you any
where in the vicinity of the ferries?"
• I was."
"Did you see Durrant there?"
"I did."
"What did you or be say?"
"I casually remarked about his being
there. He said he had heard they had
found a clew as to the whereabouts of
Blanche Lamont and that he was inter
ested in finding out all he could. He did
did not think there was much in it, but he
was anxious to see all there was in it. He
said also he did not think the detective
was doing anything. He (the detective)
wanted $50 before doing anything. Before
parting Dprrant remarked that he was
waiting for some one else."
"Did he say who that other person was?"
"No, he did not."
"What elsb did he say?"
"In speaking about the detective Dnr
rant said the detective did not seem to take
much interest in the case of Miss Lamont,
as he had not even called to see him (Dur
rant) and find out what he knew about the
case. Durrant also said be had called on
the detective to see if he could be of any
assistance."
"Have you seen Mr. Durrant about the
church very often?"
"Yes, sir. I have seen him in the library
with George King fixing up the books, and
I also saw him there fixing the electric
lights."
"Did Durrant carry a key to the church ? "
"I do not know for certain of my own
knowledge."
"Do you have a key to the church?"
"I do; yes, sir."
"Do you carry a key to the library?"
"I did until a new lock was put on the
library door."
"Do you know who put that new lock
on the library door?"
"I would "not be certain, but I think I
saw Mr. Durrant and Mr. King putting on
the lock."
SCENE AT THE TRIAL OF DURRANT.
[Sketched by a "Call" artitt.}
"Yon did not have a key to the library
after the new lock was put on?"
"I did not."
"Do you know who had keys to the new
lock?"
"I could not say, but I think those who
put the lock on had the keys."
"Do you remember the last time you saw
Mr. Durrant in the church?"
Before replying the witness drew a card
from his pocket and was in the act of con
sulting the memoranda contained tnerein.
General Dickinson asked to see the card.
When the defense got hold of the card the
witness was asked when and why he had
jotted down the dates.
He said he had put down the dates in
the room next the Police Court the day
before.
"Is your memory not as good to-day as
it was then," was asked by General Dick
inson.
"Yes. but I had to figure back and get
the exact dates from the calendar."
The defense kept the card and the prose
cution proceeded with the examination.
"Do you knew whether on any of the
occasions when you were in the church
alone with Durrant that hia entrance pre
ceded yours, or was subsequently?"
"I could not say, sir."
On the cross-examination General Dick
inson again reverted to the circumstances
attending the entries on the memorandum
card.
The witness said he had had no assist
ance in making out the card except the
calendar.
James Sademan, the son of the former
witness, was next called.
"Were you in the Emmanuel Baptist
Church on Saturday, April 13?"
"Yes, sir; between the hours of 9 and
9:30 o'clock In the morning.
"Did you notice anything peculiar in the
library when you got there?"
"Yes, sir; the door to the library had
been broken open.
"Was the door open?"
"About an inch.
"Who was in the church when yon got
there?'
"Dr. Gibson; he was in his study."
"How did you enter the church that
morning?"
"Through the side door."
"Was the door open?"
"Yes, sir.''
"Do you know who carries keys to that
side door?"
"I think Durrant carried a key to the
church."
"Did you ever see Durrant in the church
alone?"
"I do not know that I ever saw him
there alone; I have seen him there with
G'-nr^e King engaged in iixing up the
books."
"Did you ever see anybody else alone in
the church besides Dr. Gibson, George King
and Theodore Durrant?"
"No, sir."
"Did you discover the body of Minnie
Williams in the church Saturday morn
ing?"
"No. sir; some young ladies who were
decorating the church found the body. It
was in the closet off the library."
The only question asked by the defense
on the cross-examination was as to
whether the witness had made any pur
chases downtown on the Friday preceding
the Saturday on which the body of Minnie
Williams was discovered.
The witness replied in the affirmative.
Miss Annie Moisant of 2708 Central ave
nue, Alameda, was the next witness on the
stand.
"Did you know Miss Williams?"
"1 knew her by sight."
"Did you see lier recently?"
"Two weeks ago Saturday I saw her in
company with a young man?"
"Where did you see them?"
"The young lady was standing in the
doorway of Mrs. Morgan's house on Ver
sailles avenue, and the young man stood
on the porch."
"Could you identify the young man?"
"Not positively."
"Do you know' Mr. Durrant?"
"I do not."
"Were you shown Mr. Durrant yester
day?"
"Yes, sir; it was downstairs in some
office."
"How does he resemble the young man
you saw talking with Miss Williams?"
"He looks much like him."
Cross-examination— "Were you in the
courtroom yesterday?" asked General
Dickinson.
"I was, sir."
"Whom were you with?"
"With mv frVnd, Mr. McKean. He
pointed out "Mr. Durrant to me."
"Who had you go downstairs?"
"I think it was Detective Gibson."
"Who Bent for you in Alameda?"
"Some officer in Alameda. I did not
know his name."
"Whom did you meet when you came
here in answer" to that summons?"
"Detective Gibson."
"Whom were you with when you saw
Miss Williams and the young man stand
ing in the doorway?"
•Miss McKay."
■■Was there anything special that at
tracted your attention ?"
"Nothing particular."
"Did you get a good look at his face?"
"Not a very close look at him."
"Do you recall anything else that took
place between you and the officer?"
"Nothing further than that I made the
remark that Mr. Durrant's garb was not
the same as that of the man I saw talking
with Miss Williams. He put on his hat
while he was downstairs."
"At whose suggestion did he put on his
hat in the presence of ladies?"
"It was at the suggestion of Detective
Gibson."
"Do you know who it was that beckoned
tovoatocome across the courtroom and
take a seat where you could eet a good
look at Durrant?"
"I do not."
'•Were you subpenaed to attend court?"
"Yes, sir; I was, on Sunday."
"And you came in response to that sum
mons?"
"Yes, sir."
Miss Edith McKean was called.
"Did you know Minnie Williams in her
lifetime?"
"By sight."
"You live near Mr. Morgan's place,
where she stopped, do you not?"
"I do and I saw Misa Williams quite
often."
Her testimony was corroborative of that
of the previous witness about Miss Wil
liams being seen with a young man on
Mr. Morgan's front porch two weeks ago.
"Do you think Durrant was the same
man whom you saw talking to Misa Wil
liam"?" was asKed.
"He looks very much like him."
"Do you think you could positively iden
tify him?"
"I would not swear positively, but I
think he is the same man."
On the cross-examination witness said
she had seen the face of the young man
who was on the porch with Miss Williams
ami that she thought Durrant looked very
much like him.
She was asked the same questions as
those propounded to the preceding wit
ness concerning her intercourse with the
detectives and the way in which she came
to be a witness in the caße. Her answers
were similar and sometimes identical with
those given by her companion, who was
on the stand before her.
The court adjourned till 10 o'clock this
morning.
The prosecution has about twenty more
witnesses to put on, and this, it is under
stood, will conclude the preliminary hear
ing, the defense reserving its testimony
for the Superior Court, where a stubborn
legal battle wUI be foucht.
LIGHTS EXPLAINED.
Workmen Busy in the Church
While Miss Lamont's
Body Was There.
There has been considerable gossip
among the congregation of Emmanuel
Baptist Church about some mysterious
workmen who were seen in the building
between the dates of the disappearance of
Blanche Lamont and the murder of Marian
Williams.
People dwelling in the neighborhood, as
well as church members, have positively
affirmed that they saw lights in Emmanuel
Church at night, as though the men were
working late. They also saw ladders be
ing carried into the church and men com
ing and going auring the daytime. Some
even declared that they remembered hav
ing seen the workmen's lights through the
slats of the belfry after dark.
Lately people have been wondering
whether these men were repairing the gas
or the electric wires. The fact that they
were doing either would give jome appar
ent color to Durrant's statement that gas
and wires were out of order on the Wednes
day that Blanche Lamont disappeared.
No one in the neighborhood of the chapel
seems to know anything more of the work
men than that they saw them about the
Bth or 9th inst.
P. D. Code, when asked yesterday for in
formation on the matter, said he was cer
tain no extensive repairing had been done,
but he remembered having heard some
thing about more gas-burners for the
church, and J. Kraker, superintendent of
the Faultless Gas-saver Company, on Pow
ell street, admitted somewhat reluctantly
that it was his men who had been seen in
Emmanuel Church.
"I have had instructions to say- very lit
tle about the matter tilt the trial." he said.
"We are not keeping back evidence, but
merely reserving it, at the request both of
the police and Durrant's friends, till called
upon to speak at the trial. I may say,
however, that our men did work in the
church for several days between the dates
of the two murders. It was their light 3
that were seen in the building, but they
never went into the belfry.
"Our employes were engaged in putting
in gas-savers, and in order to do that it
was necessary to cut the electric wires.
Just to show how little the electrician who
said the wires had not been touched for
months knew about the matter I may say
that not only were they severed, but that
the nisht Marian Willfam3 was murdered
the wires were down here at our office and
were not replaced in the church till Satur
day night.
J. Kraker added that he was unable to
say whether the gas was out of order.
"We had nothing to do with repairs," he
said. 'Our business was only to put on
the savers."
THAT BLOODY COAT.
Miss Boillot Thinks She Can
Identify Durrant as the
Man Who Left It.
The blood-stained coat which was
brought to light in Berkeley Monday
afternoon and which was at first thonght
to be the property of Theodore Durrant
has caused a great sensation in the little
town across the bay. There is, however,
considerable difficulty in determining the
day upon wnich the package containing it
was found. Three different dates have
been mentioned in connection with the in
cident, and it seems almost impossible to
connect the garment with either of the
Emmanuel Church tragedies.
Monday afternoon last Mrs. Jane Boillot,
who lives at the corner of College avenue
and Parker street in Berkeley, took to
Deputy Constable Murray a paper package
which' had been left in her possession by a
stranger. The man had approached ncr
house on a run. When near by he stopped,
removed his coat and wrapped it in paper.
He then stepped to the door and assed
permission to leave the package for a few
hours." This being granted he placed it in
a coalbin in the cellar and started on a run
for the foothills. As the stranger did not
return, Mrs. Boillot opened the bundle to
find, if possible, a clew to its ownership.
Perctiving the bloodstains, she became
alarmed and handed the garment to the
officers.
Miss Agnes Boillot, of whom the un
known asked permission to leave his
bundle, says that he resembled very much
the published likeness of Mr. Durrant,
except that his hair was shorter. She
believes she could identify him.
The coat is a double-breasted frock of
black corkscrew or diagonal. It is made
up as a "Prince Albert" and is in good
condition. There have been two small
patches inserted in the lining of the back
and the sleeves have been relined. The
garment was made by 0. W. Xordwell of
this city, and originalfy nad the owner's
name on a strip of cloth sewed inside the
inner pocket. This the stitching shows to
have been recently removed.
The blood stains extend across the
shoulders and down both sides of the front
of the garment. An attempt had been
made to remove them with some cleansing
solution, but without success. There is
also blood on the left sleeve, and the under
portions of the cuffs are shiny, as though
the wearer was accustomed to work at a
desk. The chest measurement of the gar
ment is thirty-eight inches.
Any value which might attach to Miss
Boillot's identification of Durrant as the
owner of the bloody coat is largely lost be
cause of her inability to determine the
date of his visit to her home. When Miss
Boillot first told the story to the officers
she stated that the coat was left at her
house on the morning of last Saturday
week. Later she stated that the occur
rence happened about two weeks ago, and
to-day wnen interviewed at her home she
fixed upon th* Friday before March 23 as
the proper d ft ?.
Mrs. King. .-;<terto Deputy Town Mar
shal Ben Calhoun, says that Mrs. Boillot
told her about the coat and its blood stains
on February 26. She locates the date by a
charge on her books for groceries against
Mrs. Boillot, who, she says, usually paid
cash. Mr. Leon Boillot, the husband and
father, who is an artist on the staff of the
Chronicle, thinks that the date must be
still more remote.
The coat is now in the possession of the
Berkeley officers, who are awaiting orders
from Chief Crowley. Dr. Hubert Rowell
has examined the stains and pronounces
them human blood.
Mr. Nordwell says he never made a coat
for Theodore Durrant or for any one bear
ing that surname.
ANSWERED THE ROLL
Dv rant's Classmates Confident
He Was Present April
3 Last.
Durrant will unquestionably find not a
little consolation in the fact that a major
rity of his classmates — seniors of the
Cooper Medical College — stoutly affirm
that he was present at the lecture delivered
by Dr. W. F.Cheney on the afternoon of
the day on which the murdered girl
Blanche Lamont mysteriously disappeared.
This was Wednesday, April 3, between
the hours of 3:30 and 4:30 p. m.
It will be remembered that Miss Minnie
Edwards, Miss Alice Pleasant and Miss M.
Lanigan swore positively to having seen
Durrant with Miss Lamont at 3 o'clock on
that afternoon, and further that they saw
the couple leave the car together." The
rollbook of Dr. Cheney shows that Durrant
was present when the lecture began at
3:30, though it is quite possible that some
member or the class might, at the request
of Durrant, have answered to his name.
To settle the much vexed question of
Durrant's presence in the lecture-room on
that — to Miss L-amont — fatal day, the senior
class of the Cooper Medical College held a
meeting yesterday morning. Dr. Cheney
presided over the meeting, recounting to
the young medical students the awful pre
dicament of their companion, calling upon
them all to make any statement that
tended to throw the least light on
Durrant's movements on that particular
day. If any of them had answered to
Durrant's name when the roll was called
the doctor asked that he come for
ward and say so, and he would
agree to keep secret the name of the person
who had done this apparently prodigious
service for the accused young man.
There are seventy -six young men in the
class, and the majority of them expressed
the opinion that Durrant was present at
the lecture delivered by Dr. Cheney on
April 3. and consequently he must "have
answered to his own name when the roll
was called. A very significant fact, to say
the least of it, is that not one of the young
men would say that he had answered for
Durrant when the roll was called.
"It is practically impossible for me to
tell whether Durrant was present on the
3a of April or not." said Dr. Cheney yes
terday. "The roll-book shows that he was,
though this is not positive proof, because
it is quite a common thing for the young
gentlemen to answer for each otlier. I
asked the class if any of their number had
answered to Durrant'a name, and they de
nied having done so. Personally, I think
Durrant was present at the lecture, though
this is merely an opinion based upon my
past knowledge of the young man.
'•The best way to settle this disputed
question is io tind Durrant's notebook,
and if it contains notes of the lecture I
should say that would clearly establish his
presence on that particular afternoon. To
day after the meeting a student came to
me and said that Durrant had asked him
<jn the 10th of April for a few notes on the
lecture of April 3; but I do not consider
this important, as it is a common thing
for the students to ask each other ques
tions on the preceding lecture during the
half hour that intervenes between the 2
o'clock lecture and my own. Durrant
thought he would be called upon that day
to give some explanation of the preceding
lecture and simply wanted to refresh his
memory. At least that is the way I view
the circumstance."
EMMANUEL CHURCH.
Ex-Supervisor Taber Writes Its
History and Makes an
Appeal.
To the Editor of the Call: As many untrue
things have been circulated, in the papers and
out of them, about Emmanuel Baptist Church,
I feel that it is the duty of some one who is in
terested in its welfare and knows something of
its history to speak for it and in a measure
refute some of the slanderous stories.
A little of its history first:
It was started on Twenty-second street, be
tween Mission and Howard, about twenty-five
years ago. by a small band of earnest workers.
I had just moved to the Mission, and by the in
vitation of a friend my wife and I attended,
finding the people and pastor (Rev. Dr. Buck
bee) so kind and agreeable that we continued,
and have ever feltit a church home, where our
littla ones have all been brought up in its
Sunday-school.
In 1886 it was thought best to sell the prop
erty on Twenty-second street, as we had a
chance to do so to good advantage, and buy
one in a more suitable place as we thought.
We sold and bought the corner of Twenty-third
and Guerrero streets. In a short time and
before anything had been done toward build
in? we had an offer for the new lot much in
advance of the price paid, and as we needed
considerably more money it was thought ad
visable to look around for another lot, when
the present site was found, bargained for and
the Twenty-third-street lot sold. Subscriptions
were solicited and the present building
erected, improvements and grounds costing
over $30,000.
Although small in numbers, and with no
wealthy members, starting in 1888 with an
empty treasury, the little society completed its
fine building, and had a comparatively small
debt. A better and more earnest band of work
ers could not be found, and now, just when
the skies were brightening, the congregation
growing under the leadership of the Rev. Mr.
Gibson, this terrible blow has come. It stag
gers the stoutest hearts among us, and it does
seem to me that the papers and every intelli
gent person, who believes in the elevation of
the human race and all those agencies which
help to raise mankind on to a higher plane
should lend their aid in every possible way to
sustain this church now in its great hour of
trial, and not condemn it as a whole for the act
of a fiend, whether that fiend is one who has
been numbered as one of the flock, or an out
sider.
Now, why should men say, "Burn the church
down," or "Tear It down?" Would that bring
back onr girls? Would it better things in
any way ? I think not. Better let our pas
sions cool and act wisely.
It has been said that there is or was a bed
room and bed iv the church. This is untrue.
Mr. Cressey, a former pastor, was a widower,
had a son, "his salary was small, and in order to
help him along the "Ladies' Aid Society, I think,
bought a bedlounge for the study in order that
he and his son could sleep there and so 6ave
room rent. They were the only persons that
erer slept within the walls of Emmanuel Bap
tist Church. Mr. Gibson has a room with
friends on Valencia street.
It has also been said that there are s large
number of keys to the church and that people
have been seen going in and out of the Duild
ing at all hours. Now. as to the number of
keys, as near as I can ascertain, there are three
to the front and four to the side door. This la
not very strange when you take into consider
ation the wav church work is divided up. For
instance, we "have a pastor, board of trusteea,
Ladies' Aid Society, Christian Endeavor (com
posed of the young people), choir and janitor,
the latter not getting sufficient salary to attend
all meetings, and therefore he cannot open and
close the church at all times.
In regard to people going in and out at "all
hours,' 1 it is not so. Many evenings through
the month there are meetings of the different
branches spoken of, socials and entertain
ments, such as dinners, lectures and fairs. For
some of these decorations of the rooms and pul
pit are required. This work has been. done in
the daytime usually, but all has been in sea
sonable hours. I will ad«l that some persons
not belonging to the church have broken into
the yard adjoining. I know it has been impos
sible to keep the eate in repair.
In the foregoing I have endeavared, in my
plain, humble way, to state fact* a» I know
them, believing it to be for the interest not
ouiy of Emmanuel Baptist Church, but every
one who loves to help make mankind nobler
and better. A friend of the church,
C. W. Tabeb.
Did Not See Durrant.
Among those that have been mentioned
as having seen Durrant at Emmanuel
Church on the night of the Williams mur
der were the Misses Sturges, who live near
the edifice. All reports connecting these
ladies with the case in any way are with
out foundation.
ASSUMED ANOTHER NAME
The Mystery Surrounding Miss
Nettie Dowd Cleared at
Last.
The True Name of the Girl Is Bertha
Passion — A Queer
Story.
Among the inmates of the Rescue Home
at 26 Hill street is a girl 17 years of age
who succeeded in mystifying the police for
several days. She was arrested last week
in a questionable resort on Sixth etreet,
and when asked her name said that it was
Nettie Dowd and that she had been ab
ducted from her home in Monterey by a
woman known as Annie Jackson.
The girl's story was published in the
Call on the following day, and on Monday
two residents of Monterey appeared and
declared that the girl was an impostor.
The visitors, who know the real Nettie
Dowd well, called at the Rescue Home to
interview the girl and set at rest the sus
picions they entertained. They saw the
alleged Nettie Dowd and immediately de
clared that she was not the girl she claimed
to be.
•'Nettie Dowd," said one of these gentle
men yesterday, "is not over 13 years of
age and this girl is 17 at least. Besides,
Nettie is at home ana has not been ab
ducted. Her parents are weil connected
and wealthy, and the notoriety they have
suffered by reason of the fraud practiced
by this unknown girl has pained them ex
ceedingly. lam at a loss to understand
why this" girl has assumed the name of
Nettie Dowd. It is certain she has lived at
Monterey, but I am unable to place her
definitely."
The officers of the Society for the Pre
vention of Cruelty to Children, when in
formed of the facts in the case, began an
investigation. The alleged Nettie Dowd
was inter7iewed, and when asked to ex
plain why she was masquerading under an
assumed name declared that it was not
true. She insisted that she was the genu
ine Dowd girl and reiterated the story of
her abduction which has been published.
The fact that the girl is of Spanish nativ
ity disproved her claim, and yesterday she
was recognized as Bertha £ assion, a girl
from Monterey, for whom a search has
been long in progress. She was well ac
quaintedVith the Dowd family, and when
arrested the idea came to her of assuming
the name of Mr. Dowd's daughter. In this
manner the identity of the girl was con
cealed, but it did not prevent her being
booked for an institution for girls.
The alleged Annie Jackson with whom
Bertha Passion came to this city from
Monterey was found in a lodeing-house on
Third street by Officer McMurray yester
day. She was recognized as Mary Egan,
whose parents reside at 220 Fifteenth street.
She denies that she had any relations with
the alleged Dowd girl or that she came to
this city with her.
TO A
LADY FRIEND
Or, if you're bashful, to a lady re-
lation, this beautiful desk would be
h a prized gift. Solid Oak. Mahogany
or Birch. The price will astonish
■ you— if you're curious to know it—
calL
INDIANAPOLIS
FURNITURE
CO. j
750 Mission St. Wk
-
£ PALESTINE CORN 0
0 Is hard to beat. Can be planted till 4
1 ■ Jane. Yields about 2,000 lbs. corn and X
5 12 tons excellent fodder per acre on dry 0
0 land. Can be barrested with combined- —
> harvester. Send $1 per acre for seed T
r desired. Address: SACRAMENTS RIVES 0
' # NURSERY CO.. WALNUT CS3YE. CALIF.
#%^%%^%%%^%^»%^%
CADET UNIFORMS.
riLOTHTERS Dssntnra to submit pro.
\J posatß for making Uniforms will receive circu-
lar and form of proposal by addressing the under-
signed. J. H. C. BOXTK,
secretary University of California.
i Berkeley, April 22, 1695.
■ ' - ...,■...■-■*-■ -.■..- ■
5