The Eddy Current

THE DURRANT CASE.

United States Supreme Court Affirmed the Decision of the Circuit Court.

Washington, Nov. 9.—The United States supreme court yesterday affirmed the decision of the circuit court for the California circuit, refusing a writ of habeas corpus to William Henry Durrant, under sentence of death for the murder of Miss Blanche Lamont in San Francisco, in April, 1895.

The decision of the court in the Durrant case was in response to the motion of Attorney General Fitzgerald, entered last Monday, to dismiss the case or affirm the decision of the court below, and of course relieve the court from the necessity of hearing the case upon its merits on the 15th instant, as at first arranged. The chief justice, in rendering the opinion of the court, indulged in no comment whatever beyond remarking that the order of the circuit court was affirmed on the authority of the decision of the court in the cases of Hurtado vs. California (volume 110 of the supreme court reports), Wordstrom vs. Washington (volume 164 of the same reports), and of Cramer vs. Washington, recently decided.

Attorney General Fitzgerald was present in the courtroom when the opinion was rendered, and said it would insure Durrant's execution and was in all respects satisfactory to the state. The court granted the motion of the state's attorney general to advance the cases of Hill and Crossley, two men under sentence of death in California, fixing the date for their hearing on the first Monday in December.

There was absolutely no excitement or interest whatever attendant upon the announcement of the chief justice in the Durrant case. Only a few of the usual crowd of Monday sightseers in the court knew the significance of the conclusion of the court. The chief justice made the announcement along with a list of others, and his rapid, indistinct utterance conveyed no intimation that it was probably the last legal step in one of the most celebrated of the country's crimes.

Attorney General Depew, of counsel for the condemned man, expressed considerable surprise when informed that the case had already been decided, as he was under the impression that it was to have been heard on Nov. 15. He said he did not consider the decision final. He refused, however, to discuss what action he proposed to take in the premises, and intimated that he was afraid that snap judgment would be taken by the state officials if he announced his intentions for the future.