The San Francisco call. [volume], July 27, 1895, Page 14, Image 14

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

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

                
14
A WILLING WITNESS IN DURRANT'S BEHALF.
Charles H. Clark Sends
a Telegram From
Boston.
HE KNEW MISS LAMONT.
Saw Her on April 3 With aj
Young Man Other Than
the Accused.
QUESTIONING THE TALESMEN.!
Irwln J. Truman and Thomas W.
Selberlich Sworn to Try
the Case.
THE DURRANT CASE IN A MINUTE-BRIEF
REVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
Counsel for Durraut disclosed their line of de- j
fense in open court yesterday. They hope to
prove an alibi for the accused and have named
the man upon whose testimony they mostly
rely. He is Charles H. Clark, traveling sales
man for a Boston wine and spirit house. 11l
open cour: yesterday General Dickinson was
handed a telegram from Clark in which the
strongest kind of intimations of knowledge
were contained. Clark stated that he was on a ,
Valencia-street car, roing west, on the after- j
noon of April 3 last, about 3:30 o'clock, when
he saw Blanche Lament with a young man,
who was not Durrant. on the same car.
General Dickinson was somewhat startled ?.t
the receipt of the telegram, but at once grasped j
its importance. If the young lady was ou a |
Valencia-street car with another than Durrant, j
then, even if the young ladies of the Normal j
School who testified that they saw him board a j
Powell-street car at 3 o'clock were correct, i
Durrant must have left Miss Lamont at some
place between Clay and Market streets. Conn
eel for the defense immediately drew up inter
rogatories to be propounded to Mr. Clark and
the court granted an order for a commission to
issue to take his deposition.
In other ways rapid progress was made in
the case. The challenge to the jury panel was |
overruled and talesmen were examined as to |
their qualifications. Twenty-three were ques
tioned, many of them having strong views
against capital punishment and circumstan
tial evidence, and at tA adjournment of court I
two had been accepted and sworn to try the |
case. They are Irwin J. Truman, the well
known banker *nd president of the Civic j
Federation, and Thomas W. Seiberlich, a shoo I
manufacturer.
Court adjourned till Monday morning, when
the examination of talesmen will be resumed.
The Gall invites attention to its suc
cinct and distinctive method of reporting
the Durrant trial. While this journal may
not at all times present as many columns
of matter in regard to this case as do some
of ita contemporaries, yet readers may de
pend on finding here every iota of news
that is requisite to a proper understanding
of the proceedings.
Every step in the legal battle will be j
noted and analyzed in an able manner,
with the thorough impartiality thßt is
always characteristic of trained and con- !
scientious journalists. Irrelevant ques
tions and immaterial answers will be elimi
nated to the end that readers of The Call !
will be spared the labor of perusing useless !
columns of Tinprotitabie platitudes.
In regard to the moral aspect of the case
Thk Call will exercise that high dis
cretion which every reputable journal i
considers imperative to guard the clean- i
Jiness of its columns. This may be a dis
appointment to some excessively curious
minds, ana there may be some read
ers who for a time will withdraw their
approval, yet we doubt not that their sec
ond sober thought will cause them to
realize the righteousness of Tee Call's
course, and that they will all return to the
support of the public journal that is inde
pendent enough to continue in the path of j
duty, regardless of temporary incon
veniences.
Of one thin? the public will take notice,
and that is that The Call's report will be
distinctive, and that until you read The
Call you have not secured a complete
view of the circumstances that go to make
the JDurrant trial one of the most interest
ing.criminal cases of the century.
B\isv men and women are particularly
invited to scan the resume of the day's
proceedings that appears at the head of this
column under the caption of "The Dur
rant Case in a Minute." This epitome of
the case will be continued from day to day,
and those who have but a minute to spare,
yet who wish to know the exact truth of
the day's proceedings, may turn to The
Call and obtain the gist of the news in the
allotted sixty seconds.
The crush for place at the Durrant trial
yesterday morning was greater than at
any time since the celebrated case opened.
The moment the doors swung on their
hinges all who had excuses sufficient to
pass the deputies crowded in and filled the
Eeats and benches inside and outside the
bar. many women, and pretty ones, being
of the number. The prisoner and his
father sat side by side when Judge Murphy
ascended the bench and court was con
vened, and all the counsel were waiting and
ready to proceed. The court notified the
attorneys that Deputy County Clerk Piper
was present with the list of jurors for
which inquiry had been made. At the re
quest of the court Mr. Piper handed the
list of jurors to Mr. Deuprey.
"I want to say to the gentlemen of the
defense," said his Honor, ''that, as a mat
ter of course, matters concerning the ac
tion of the court in bank are familiar to
me as a Judge, but as there has been an
omission concerning entries in the min
utes, and for the purpose of making the
record show the true state of facts, I have
invited Judge Sanderson, the presiding
Judge, to show the exact state of facts, so
that the record may show and conform to
the truth. Will you please take the stand,
Judge?"
Judge Sanderson was sworn to tell the
truth concerning the matter upon which
he was to be questioned. He stated that
at a meeting of the Judges in bank in Jan
uary last it had been agreed that 3600 petit
jurors and 144 grand jurors should be
drawn for the year; that after that each
Judge bad submitted his list and the
whole number was made up and handed
to the County Clerk.
"Of course, your Honor," said Mr. Deu
prey, after Judge Sanderson had finished,
'this character of proof is objected to be
cause it is not tne best evidence." The
objection was overruled.
"Upon the statement to me," resumed
Judge Sanderson, "that the secretary had
omitted to enter the minutes of the court
in bank in this proceeding, I directed him
to insert these minutes as they actually
took place there, which he has done and I
have certified to."
Judge Sanderson was excused and Secre
tary Coffroth was called. He testified that
under the direction of the presiding Judge
he had made additional entries in the
minute-book of the Superior Court, to show
how the lists of petit and grand jurors had
been made up. Mr. Deuprey moved to
Btrike out this evidence, because, as he
stated, it did not comply with the require
ments of the statute, and for the reason
the entries spoken of had not been made
at the time. The motion was denied. Mr.
Deuprey then made his objection to the
panel more specific.
"We make objection," he said, "upon
the ground that the manner of the selec
tion of the jurors does not comply with
the provisions of sections 204 and 205 of the
Code of Civil Procedure in this, that it does
not appear that they were selected in this
relation of persons not exempt from ser
vice. We refer particularly in this to
the fact that a number of those obtained
by the court yesterday were instead of
their being 'selected by reason of
their not being exempt from jury duty it
was found that several were exempt from
jury duty by their testimony ; that others
presented certificates of physicians to show
that they were not physically and mentally
capable "of being jurors in the case. \\ c
make this objection specifically to each one
of the list that has been presented and
tiled with the County Clerk of the City and
County of San Francisco."
"Objection overruled." said Judge Mur
phy. "If such an objection as that could
prevail it would devolve upon each of the
Judges of this court to personally inspect
the physical infirmities of all jurors.
"We"simply stand within the law, said
Mr. Deuprey. "Of course, the law may be
cumbersome."
"The challenge of the panel is disal
lowed," said Judge Murphy.
This matter being so disposed of, the
court ordered that the slips of paper con
taining the names of the jurors be placed
in the. tin box and twelve names be drawn
therefrom. This was done and twelve
members of the panel answered their
names, were sworn and took their seats in
the jury-box.
"Gentlemen of the jury." said District
Attorney Barnes, arising to address them,
"and I desire the other talesmen present
to give me their attention— gentlemen of
the jury, the defendant, "William Henry
Theodore Durrant, is charged by the
people of the State of California with the
crime of murder, namely, in having caused
the deatn of one Blanche Lamont, in this
City and County, in the Emmanuel Bap
tist Church, oh Bartlett street, between
Twenty-second and Twenty-third, on or
about "the 3d of April of this year. For
this offense he is now brought to trial and
you are called to be examined as jurors to
try this case."
Clerk Morris called the name of \\ uliara
Helbing. contractor and builder, residing
at 1005 Treat avenue.
"Are you a member of Emmanuel Bap
tist Church?" asked the District Attorney.
"No. sir."
"Are you acquainted with the defendant
Durrant?"
"No, sir," was the reply.
"Has the relation of attorney and client
ever existed between you and Mr. Deuprey
or General Dickinson?"
"No, sir."
"Have you ever had any business rela
tions witti Detective Morse— are you ac
quainted with Mr. Morse?"
"No, sir," replied Mr. Helbing.
"Have you any religious scruples against
the infliction of the deatn penalty in a
proper case?"
"No sir." came the prompt reply.
"Mr. Helbing," continued Mr. Barnes,
"if there should be produced in this case
evidence which was circumstantial in its
nature, would you disregard that evidence
simply and solely because it was circum
stantial evidence and refuse to consider it
In arriving at your verdict, or would you
give it such a weight as you would con
sider it entitled to and give it such weight
as it deserved?"
The witness did not quite understand
the question, and stated he only knew the
difference between direct and circumstan
tial evidence from reading the papers. The
District Attorney then gave him illustra
tions of both kinds of evidence and asked:
"Now, would you regard and take into
your consideration, for the purpose of
arrivine at your verdict, such circumstan
tial evidence as might be pressnted to you,
as well as direct evidence?"
"Of course," was the reply.
"In other words, you would consider
circumstantial evidence?"
"Well, it depends on how strong it is."
"Would you consider circumstantial evi
dence and weigh it, giving it such weight
as you would think it entitled to in your
mind?"
"I would."
"And you would weigh it as you would
any other evidence?"
"I would."
"If you were satisfied in yonr own mind
by circumstantial evidence of the guilt of
the defendant, could you find a verdict of
guilty where the punishment would be
death upon such evidence?"
"Yes/sir, I would."
"Do you know of any reason why you
would not be able to sit as a fair and im
partial juror in this case and render a just
verdict as between the people on one side
and the defendant on the other?"
"No, sir."
The prosecution passed the juror, and
he was taken in hand by Mr. Deuprey for
the defense.
"Have you any acquaintance with I. W.
Lees?"
"No, sir."
"Or Mr. Benjamin Bohen?"
"No, sir."
"Or Mr. Seymour?"
"No, sir."
And so it went throueh the list of City
detectives, the Chief of Police, the Coroner
and his deputies, the juroranswering"no"
to every question. He also pleaded a total
ignorance of the, existence of such persons
as the District Attorney or any of his as
sistants, or of C. G. Noble, uncle of Blanche
Lamont; Key. J. George Gibson, pastor of
Emmanuel Baptist Church; the pastor's
secretary, Mr. Lynch; Elmer Wolf, Clar
ence Wolf and Minnie Lord. The witness
stated that he had read the testimony
given at the Coroner's inquest, and had
discussed it freely with a number of
friends.
"Have you ever discussed it with any
person who was a witness either at the
hearing before the Coroner or at the pre
liminary examination?"
"No, sir."
"From what you have read," asked Mr.
Deuprey, "and from the discussions in
which you engaged, have you formed or
expressed an opinion as to the guilt or in
nocence of the defendant— not what the
opinion is, out, have you expressed an
opinion?"
"I have, sir."
"Do you now possess an opinion as to
the guilt or innocence of the defendant?"
"Yes, sir."
"Is that opinion such a one as would re
quire evidence, strong evidence, to remove
it?"
"Yes, si/."
"In other words, would you like to be
tried upon a charge of this serious nature
by twelve men possessing such an opinion
as you now possess?"
"I would not like to be; no, sir,"
answered the juror in such lugubrious
tones that everybody present laughed out
right.
"We challenge the juror, if your Honor
please," said Mr. Deuprey, "in this, that
there has been obtained from the testi
mony of the gentleman called to answer
questions as to his qualifications the exist
ence of facts which disqualify him and
known as implied bias."
The challenge was allowed. Mr. Hel
bing excused.
Toe name of John H. Grady was next
called, but Mr. Deuprey interrupted by
asking that the jury-box be filled before
the examination of any other juror was
proceeded with. Judge Murphy decided
that it was necessary, in view of the fact
that the Supreme Court had held time and
again that when once twelve jurors had
been called into the box, the examina
tion of the twelve must proceed before
others were called. The defense noted an
exception, and Mr. Grady was taken in
hand by the District Attorney. He stated
that he was a real estate agent, with his
place of business at 323 Montgomery street
and residence at 730 Twenty-fourth street.
In answer to questions he stated plainly
that he had conscientious scruples against
the infliction of the death penalty. He
was so positive on this point that after a
few questions by the court, the challenge
THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, SATURDAY, JULY 27, 1895.
made by the people was allowed and Mr.
Grady was excused.
Thomas W. Seiberlich, manufacturer, re
siding at 533 Ellis street, was next ques
tioned as to his qualifications.
"Have you any conscientious scruples
atrainst the infliction of the death penalty
in a proper case?" asked the District At
torney.
"No, sir."
"Would you weitrh circumstantial evi
dence, giving it such weight as it was en
titled to and, if you thought it sufficient,
would you return upon it a verdict of
guilty?"
"Yes, sir; I think so.
The juror testified that he was not a
member of the Emmanuel Church and not
acquainted with the defendant, Durrant,
nor the organist of the church, George
Kins. He was then passed to the defense.
"Mr. Seiberlich, have you any acquaint
ance with any member of the detective
force of the City and County of San Fran
cisco?" asked Mr. Deuprey.
"No. sir."
Mr. Deuprey then questioned closely as
to his acqaintance with the same persons
as to whom he had inquired so closely
from Mr. Helbine, but the witness an
swered that he knew none of them.
"Have you read any of the newspaper
accounts," continued Mr. Deuprey, "per
taining to this charge?"
"I have not read them thoroughly— just
glanced through them. We took The Call
and Examiner, but I just glanced through
them, but never memorized any of it."
"Have you talked to any person in rela
tion to what you have read?"
"I have."
'•Have you formed or expressed any
opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the
defendant?"
"Yes, sir," promptly replied the witness.
"Do you now possess that opinion?"
"Yes, sir."
"Is that opinion such that it would re
quire evidence to remove it?"
"Very strong evidence," replied Mr.
Seiberlich.
"In other words, as you now are, with
the opinion that you possess, you would
not sit there as an impartial juror— you
would require some evidence to remove
the opinion you now hold?"
"Yes, sir."
"And do you believe you could sit here
and try this case as an impartial juror be
tween the defendant and the State ?"
"Yes, sir."
"Do you mean to say that you, possess
ing an opinion from what you have read
and discussed, could go into that jury-box
with the same condition of mind as be
tween the State and the defendant as
though you had never read anything or
discussed the matter?"
"I would take the case as the evidence
was given," was the reply.
"Would you like to be tried by twelve
men possessing the same ODinion you pos
sess at the present time if you were charged
with a crime?"
"I would."
"If you were charged by the court, Mr.
Seiberlich, in relation to circumstantial
evidence that if you possessed a reasonable
doubt as to any one circumstance that
might be testified to — that is to say, any
essential circumstance that might be testi
fied 10 — would you, if charged that that
must be resolved in favor of the defendant,
be guided by such a charge?"
"Yes, sir; I would."
"Have you any opinion," asked Mr.
Deuprey, taking a new tack and disclosing
part of what will be the line of defense, "in
relation to the requirements of testimony
in regard to identification?"
"In which way?" inquired the juror.
"That is to say, as to the liability of a
person being mistaken in regard to the
person whom they claim was present at a
certain place on a certain occasion? — that
is, do you believe in the fallibility of testi
mony upon identification — that* a person
may be misguided by the thought that
possessed him at the time he claims to
nave seen the person?"
"Yes, sir," answered the juror.
'That they might be misguided as to
color, size and surrounding conditions?"
"Yes, sir.' 1
"Do you recoenize now that such mis
takes could occur, and that the person so
testifying could be mistaken ?"
"Yes, sir."
"Do you believe, sir, with all that you
have said upon the matter pertaining to
this case, and from wnat you have heard
others say, and with all you have read in
regard to'it, that you could sit here as an
impartial juror to try this case."
"I think I could," said Mr. Seiberlich.
"And that you would free yourself from
any opinion you have formed in regard to
it?"
"I would accept the evidence."
"And that you would sit here, if sworn
as a juror, listen to the evidence and weigh
the same in exactly the like pos tion as |
though you had never read anything about |
the case, or discussed it, or heard it dis
cussed?"
"Yes, sir."
"We pass for the present," said Mr.
Deuprey.
Mr. Barnes took the juror again.
"If you should be convinced by the evi
dence produced before you of the guilt of
the defendant," he said, "would you find
him guilty upon that evidence— finding
your verdict alone upon that evidence, and
not be swayed or influenced by any senti
ment of sympathy or compassion toward
the defendant or any of his relatives?"
"Yes, sir."
"Would you," asked Mr. Deuprey, rising
quickly to his feet, "be influenced under
any circumstances, if you were sworn as a
juror, in relation to the evidence in the
case, or your verdict, by any influence that
might be exercised through any Jine or
direction coming from the Police Depart
ment of the City and County of San *ran
cisco?"
"I object to that question," promptly ex
claimed Mr. Barnes.
"1 would accept it the same as any
other," was the reply of the juror.
"I am asking you," said Mr. Deuprey,
"would you be influenced by any act of the
Police Department?"
"No, sir."
"Would you be influenced by the news
papers after you were sworn as a juror?"
"No, sir."
The defense passed the juror, and James
W. Orndorff oi 102 Powell street was next
questioned. He stated that he had con
scientious scruples against the infliction of
the death penalty where the testimony
was circumstantial. He also stated that
he had formed a very strong opinion con
cerning the guilt or innocence of the de
fendant from talking to friends and read
ing the newspapers. He was firm in the
belief that he was not in the proper frame
of mind to act as a juror and was chal
lenged for cause by the District Attorney.
There being no denial the court allowed
the challenge and the juror was excused.
John Schulkeli of 901 Bush street stated
plainly that he would not be in favor of
returning a verdict, the consequence of
which would be the death penalty, on cir
cumstantial evidence. He was challenged
by the District Attorney and excused, there
being no denial.
Henry Messenberg of 857 Sutter street
had not the slightest scruple against the
infliction of the death penalty, and was
passed by the prosecution after very few
questions. In answer to a query by Mr.
Deuprey, he stated that he had great faith
in the value of circumstantial evidence,
although he believed in. the liability of
mistake in the matter of identification.
He was not particularly acquainted with
any members of the Police Department,
but had formed an opinion on the case,
and a very strong one — so fixed a one that
it would require the strongest evidence to
remove it.
"We challenge the juror under the pro
visions of subdivisions 1 and 2 of section
1073 of the Penal Code," said Mr. Deuprey,
"particularly in this, that his testimony
has elicited the fact that he is possessed of
an opinion that would take testimony of
the strongest kind to remove."
In support of his opinion. Mr. Deuprey
read several authorities of the Supreme
Court of the State of Washington, but the
court overruled the challenge. Assistant
District Attorney Peixotto then took the
juror.
"If you were sworn in the case as a
juror,"" he asked, "do you feel that you
would and could try the case and make up
your verdict simply and solely according
to the evidence as you would hear it in
court and the law as given you by the
court?"
Mr. Deuprey objected to this question,
on the ground that it did not go to the
competency of the juror. The objection
was argued at length, and finally overruled
by the court. Further questions were then
put by Mr. Deuprey, which showed that
the juror had an opinion based on reading
tha testimony given at the Coroner's in
quest, which testimony he believed to be
true. He was challenged for implied and
actual bias, and the challenge was allowed
by Judge Murphy, who held that if the
testimony was correctly reported and the
juror took it as true, there was no other
course open than to excuse him, which he
The court then ordered a recess until 2
Upon the reconvening of court Frank
Edward Booth, late of 5-10 Fillmore street,
was called upon an attachment for failure
to respond to his name when called at the
morning session. He explained to the
court that he had within the past three
monthß removed his residence to Oakland.
This he had explained to the deputy who
summoned him to appear for jury duty.
The excuse was sufficient to excuse Mr.
Booth from punishment for contempt, but
the matter of his qualification for jury
duty not then being under consideration,
he was required to remain in attendance
upon the court.
The examination of the six remaining
talesmen in the box was then resumed.
Charles H. Clark, 1134 Sutter street, ex
amined by District Attorney Barnes as to
his qualification to sit as a juror, testified
that he was a retired merchant and a man
of family. He had been a resident of San
Francisco for six years. He was not a
member of Emmanuel Baptist Church, and
had no acquaintance with Defendant Dur
rant nor parties connected with the case.
Under certain circumstances, Mr. Clark
said, he had conscientious scruples against
the infliction of the death penalty. The
circumstantial evidence that would recon
cile his conscience would have to be very
strong and most positive.
"Have you any objection to circumstan
tial evidence as evidence?" asked Mr.
"Yes," answered the talesman, but he
would weigh such evidence as he would
other evidence, and would not disregard
it simply because it was circumstantial evi
dence. He had read the newspaper ac
counts of the preliminary trials, which he
believed to be true reports, and had
formed, not a positive opinion, but an im
pression, sncn as would to a certain extent
influence him as a juror, and would require
evidence to remove. He felt he could not
act fairly and impartially as a juror.
The court allowed the challenge for
cause by the State.
William H. Elliott, publisher, 1309 Polk
street, had been a resident of San Fran
cisco for twenty years; he had no objection
to circumstantial evidence as evidence,
and would consider it as he would any
other evidence: and, if he was satisfied of
the guilt of the defendant as established
unon circumstantial evidence, and the pen
j alty was death, he would be willing to
join in a verdict of guilty. He was not ac
quainted with the defendant or any of de
fendant's family.
On being interrogated by Mr. Deuprey
I for the aefense, Mr.'Elliott stated that he
] had read the testimony taken art the Cor
oner's inquest and the preliminary trial
and had discussed the case. Upon that
reading and discussion he had formed an
opinion and still retained it, and it
would require pretty strong evidence to
remove it.
Counsel for the defense challenged the
talesman for cause based on subdivisions
1 and 2, section 1073, Penal Code, and the
j court allowed the challenge.
John Lynch, a porter, residing at 26 Wil
low avenue, testified that he had no con
scientious scruples against inflicting the
death penalty and would consider circum
stantial evidence as he would any other
evidence, and would be willing to join in
a verdict of guilty established by circum
stantial evidence, not permitting sympathy
or compassion to sway him. But, in an
swer to questions by defendant's counsel.
Mr. Lynch declared that he had formed
an opinion from reading the newspapers
that could be removed only by very strong
evidence. He was excused on the chal
lenge of the defense for cause.
William Schwarke, wine merchant, re
siding at 769 Jones street, a native of Ger
many, had been a resident in San Fran
cisco for twenty years and had no scruples
as to capital punishment and no prejudice
against circumstantial evidence.'but had
formed an opinion from reading and dis
cussing the case. He was excused on
the challenge for cause by the defendant.
Romain C. de Boom of '631 Golden Gate
avenue had read some of the newspaper
accounts, though he did not remember to
have discussed the case. He could accept
circumstantial evidence and thought per
sons could be mistaken as to identity. He
had served as a juror in criminal cases,
but had no animosity against the de
fendant.
"Would you like to be swoin as a juror
in this case?" asked Mr. Deuprey.
"I am not anxious, but am wiiling to do
my duty."
He believed he could try the case im
partially. He was born in Belgium and
had lived in San Francisco most of the
past twenty-four years.
There was no challenge for cause, but
Mr. de Boom was afterward excused on
peremptory challenge by the defense.
John H. Rippe, 2530 Bryant, grocer, said
that he could not, under any circum
stances, join in a verdict of guilty where
the punishment was the death penalty,
and the conviction founded upon circum
stantial evidence. He would simply refuse
to bring in a verdict. The State's chal
lenge for cause, based on sections 1073,
1074 and 1078 of the Penal Code, was al
lowed.
Thomas W. Seiberlich, 533 Ellis street,
was again questioned by Mr. Deuprey.
He said he had not read the evidence
before the Coroner's jury nor the commit
ting magistrate, though he had glanced at
the items or the headlines in the news
papers. He had served as a juror in the
United States court and- in one of the
Superior courts.' He sai<l he had no ac
quaintance with Martin Quinlan, and be
lieved he could try the case impartially
and be guided by the evidence under the
instructions of the court. He was passed
as to cause and upon peremptory privi
lege and was sworn to try the cause, being
the only man remaining in the box.
Eleven more names were called, and the
examination proceeded.
John G. Clark, 1101 Green street, had no
prejudice against circumstantial evidence
because it was circumstantial, but it would
have to be very strong to effect, conviction
!at his hands. He had read of the case and
formed and expressed an opinion that
would require strong evidence to remove.
He was excused on the challenge by the
defense, which was denied without fur
ther question by the prosecution but
allowed by the court.
Isaac H* Morse. 115 Clay street, had read
the reports of preliminary evidence, formed
and retained an opinion. He was chal
lenged by the prosecution, which was de
nied by the defense and allowed by the court
Addison C. Misner, 1434 Washington
street, said he had conscientious scruples
against the death penalty and could not
convict under any circumstances. The
court allowed the State's challenge, and
Mr. Misner was excused.
Irwin J. Truman, president Columbia
Banking Company, 236 Bush street,
residing at 812 Twentieth street, testified
that he had heard the questions asked of
other talesmen on circumstantial evidence
and answered that he could join in a
verdict on such evidence. He was accepted
by the prosecution, and Mr. Deuprey
questioned him.
"Did you read what purported to be the
testimony before the Coroner's jury?"
'•I have no distinct recollection of it now,
but think I did."
"Did you read that taken before the
committing magistrate?"
"I think I did, sometimes only the
headlines." i
"Have you discussed the matter?"
"I have no doubt that I have."
"From what you read or heard, and the
discussions t>y yourself, or by others, did
you form or express an opinion?"
"Yes."
"Is that a firm and fixed opinion?"
"No, sir; it is not. Direct evidence would
change it."
"Do you, at the present time, possess an
opinion on the subject of the guilt or inno
cence of the defendant?"
"No, I do not think I do."
"Then you are entirely free of any bias
or prejudice?"
"I am entirely free of any bias against
the young man, because I do not know
him. I am not acquainted with C. G.
Noble."
"You can cast aside any opinion you
have had and try the case impartially?"
"Yes."
"As to matters of identification, you be
lieve that persons may be mistaken, and
such testimony should be taken with great
caution?"
"Yes, sir."
No challenge for cause or on peremptory
privilege was offered, and Mr. Truman was
passed by the defense, as he had been by
the prosecution.
Victor Boschetti, a fruit-vender, was
excused on the challenge of the prosecu
tion on the ground that he could not well
understand the English language. The
challenge was allowed.
Jacob Martenstein of the National Flour
mills, residing at 1129 Turk street, was
passed by the prosecution, but challenged
by the defense on the ground that he had
formed and still retained an opinion
which would require strong evidence to
remove. The challenge was allowed.
James D. Bailey, insurance agent, resid
ing at 1915 Franklin street, said it would
require very strong circumstantial evi
dence for him to convict, and thought he
had such prejudice as to disqualify him.
He was passed by the prosecution and,
under a misunderstanding, also by the de
fense. Then the prosecution challenged
him, and the challenge was allowed.
Charles Proschold, 708 Point Lobos
avenue, was excused on the challenge of
j the defense on the ground that he pos
sessed an opinion which would require
strong evidence to remove.
Bernard Schloh was excused on the
ground of non-residence, having removed
to Marin County five months ago.
Mr. Deuprey was granted the privilege
of asking Mr. Truman further questions
without objection on the part of the de
fense.
"Do you know the Rev. Mr. Gibson?"
"I got acquainted with him since the
occurrence in the church. I have not dis
cussed the matter with him."
"Did your acquaintance influence you?"
"No, sir. I never talked with him— just
shook hands with him."
"You are a member of Grace Methodist
Episcopal Church?"
"Yes, sir."
"Is Grace Church one of the churches
wnere Dr. Gibson was invited to preach?"
"ies, sir."
"Having heard him preach, would that
affect your opinion?"
"No, sir."
"Would you place credence in him if he
were a witness rather than in any other
witness?"
"No, sir."
"Did you take part in the invitation?"
1 I think the invitation was given by the
minister, but if I had been asked I would
have joined in the invitation."
"You think that would not affect your
mind in dealing with the evidence "
"Not at all."
"You would simply be governed by what
you hear?"
"That is all."
No peremptory challenges were made on
Mr. Iranian and lie was accepted and
sworn as a juror to try the case.
Samuel Ignatius Warren, salesman for
O'Connor & Moffatt, was excused on the
challenge of the defense on the ground of
having formed an opinion in the case.
John H. Curry, 1003 Golden Gate avenue,
was excused on challenge of the defense on
the ground of having a fixed and unquali
fied opinion.
General Dickinson, on behalf of the de
fendant, asked for an order to take the
deposition of Charles A. Clark, a resident
of Boston, and read the following affidavit
of the defendant:
W. H. T. Durrant, being duly sworn, deposes
and says: I am the defendant above named. I
am now iv the custody of the Sheriff
ot the City and County of San Francisco and
on trial in said court on a charge of murder,
to which charge I "have entered a plea of not
guilty, and an issue of fact has been joined in
this case.
Charles H. Clark is a material witness for me
in my defense, without whose testimony I can
not safely conclude my defense. Said Charles
11. Clark resides without the State of Califor
nia, to wit, Boston, Massachusetts.
W. H. T. DUKKANT.
Subscribed and sworn to beiore me this '26th.
day of July, 1895. Chas. C. Morris,
Deputy County Clerk.
The following interrogations were then
filed with the clerk of the court:
In the Superior Court of the City and County
of San Francisco, State of California.
The People, etc., vs. W. H. T. Durrant.
Direct interrogatories to be propounded to
Charles H. Clark, a witness on behalf of the de
fendant in the above-entitled action.
Interrogatory I—State1 — State your name, age and.
place of residence, business or occupation and
place of business.
Interrogatory 2 -Do you know the defendant,
W. H. T. Durrant, and have you ever seen
him ; if yori do, how long have you known
him? When have you known him, and under
what circumstances, and when and where
have you seen him? State fully.
Interrogatory 3— Have you ever lived in San
Francisco, Cal.. and been engaged in business
there? If you have, state fully:
When you lived there.
Where you lived and giving the streets and
numbers of streets.
In what business were you or are you en
gaged, and for what length'of time?
Interrogatory 4 — Have you any relatives in
San Francisco? If you have, name some of
them and the degree of relationship.
Interrogatory s—Did5 — Did you ever, in San Fran
cisco, see a young ladY named Blanche La
mont?
Interrogatory 6— lf to the last interrogatory
you have answered yes, state when and where
you saw her, stating fully and particularly the
hour of the day, the place where, the length of
time that you saw her, and surroundings in
which you saw her, and in whose company, if
any.
Interrogatory 7— lf in answer to the last in
terrogatory you have slated that you saw Miss
Blanche Lamont in company with a gpntle
man on Wednesday, the 3d day of April, 1895,
describe as fully and particularly as you can
Miss Blanche Lamont, and how she was dressed
and did she have any parcel in her possession ;
also the gentleman with her; where were they
together ami what was their conduct during
the time? When did you first see them on the
cars, if at all? What, if any, conversation did
you hear between them? How long were they
in your sight and hearing, and when and
where you last saw them?
interrogatory S — State fully, if you know,
how your name came to the possession of the
defense in this action.
Interrogatory 9— State as fully and particu
larly as ii directly interrogated about the same
any other matter or thing within your knowl
edge regarding the defendant and the charge
against him of murdering the said Miss Lamont.
The two jurors sworn to try the case,
Messrs. Truman and Seiberlich, were then
charged by the court as to their duty in
refraining" from reading about or discuss
ing the case, and an adjournment was
taken till Monday at 10 a. m.
After the adjournment the attorneys for
the defense held a consultation to discuss
the newest aspect of the case.
The witness Charles H. Clark, whose
presence in court it is impossible to obtain,
and whose deposition General Dickinson
is anxious to have taken in Boston, is a
traveling man for a wholesale wine and
spirit house in that city. His business
often brings him to San Francisco. He
was personally acquainted with Blanche
Lamont and had met her frequently. He
is expected to testify as follows :
That between 3:30 and 4 o'clock on the after-
Ladies
Please
Dont
Mix this up with " Reduction
Sale."
Our $2.50 Shoes are the $3.50
Shoes of Retail Stores.
Our $3.50 Shoes have a $5
tag on them in retail windows.
Finest Vici Kid ; button, lea-
ther or cloth top ; latest last
(the "Yosemite"); patent ven-
tilated sole.
That's Retailing at wholesale
prices.
ROSENTHAL,
FEDER
&CO.,
Wholesale Shoe Manufacturers,
581-583 MARKET ST.,
NEAR SECOND.
Open Evenings till 8. Saturdays till iO.
1 noon of April 3 he was riding out Market street
on a Valencia-streetcar. -
That he saw Miss Lamont on that car, ana
that she bowed and spoke to him.
That she had a young man ker, a na
that that young man was not Theodore Dut
rant.
A few days after Du mint's arrest ClarK
called on General Dickinson and told nw
story. At that time he expected to be
able to attend the trial in person. .Busi
ness, however, called him suddenly to
Boston; but he returned to this City ana
was awaiting the trial when, a second time,
his presence in the East became impera
tive. When he left he expected to be able
to return in time to testify, but, appar
ently, his business affairs have rendered
this impossible.
General Dickinson received a telegraphic
dispatch yesterday from Clark, stating
that he positively could not testify here in
person. As a result, the affidavit inter
rogatories looking toward a deposition
were hurriedly drawn up in the courtroom
and presented" to the court.
Captain Lees and District Attorney
Barnes held a long consultation last night
regarding the means of discovering the
whereabouts of Clark, whom they so
much desire to interview and ask certain
questions regarding Blanche Lamont
according to the document filed in court.
Captain Lees said that Clark had not been
located, but it is understood that he i 9
traveling in the Eastern States in the in
terests of a local winehouse.
A Family Jar.
(JKEAT AMERICAN IMPORTING TEA CO.'S
Stores are selling
MASON FRUIT JARS
At greatly reduced prices.
1 dozen Jars, pints, In box Wo
1 dozen jars, quarts, in box 600
1 dozen jars, half gallons, In box 80c
Inspect our Improved Jelly G lasaea, 35c per doa
$$$$ SAVED
YOU
By Dealing
Direct With
XJS I
HYAMS, PAUSON & CO,,
34,36,38 and 40 Kearny Street,
— —AND— —
25 and 27 Sansome Street,
Wholesale
Manufacturing
Clothiers
Selling Direct to the Public.
White
And collar— fancy bosom and cuffs— collars
and cuffs attached or separate —
probably the prettiest and most popular
style of PERCALE SHIRTS.
If , you ask for the STANDARD make
you get the best for the money and you
help home industry.
I TRADE
H
MARK.
uTprU
All Dealers. NEUSTADTER BROS. Mfrs., 5. P.
NEW SCHOOL I
GERMAN AND ENGLISH SCHOOL,
: C: 1986 WEBSTER ST., OAKLAND
- (Corner of Orchard), ; ■'-.-.--
OPENS AUGUST 1 WITH A FULL CORPS OP
V. teachers. Preparation ; for, Universities. Ger- -
man Kindergarten. . - . . l
oSd D lt E io e I?K! s heia : fe y. DB «: McOLURi ot