Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-03-06
THE .BEEv LIBEL CASE.
The Evidence All in To be Argued
Monday.

| that a suit Woods VS.. Frazier) had been
| heard in his Court, some three months
since, that did not appear upon his docket.
Like other cases omitted from the docket,
il would appear there whenever he got
ready TO enter it. He received a S. de-
post from Woods, and the costs amounted
to s. so. He had not as yet returned the
81 80 to Woods.
George T. Rider, the next witness, said
he was as well acquainted with the
methods of Chinese in Court as any man
in the United States. When a woman es-
capped, in order to regain her possession a
charge was trumped up, generally of petit
larceny, but as soon as possession of the
female was obtained through the medium
| OF the Court, the charge was dismissed.
| This is true, and matter of common no.
| toriety among experienced officials
| Mr.. Johnson-Was there not consider
able money expended in the Sam Lot case
| Witness-Yes, sir, in that case there was
! great deal of money spent on both sides.
| believe, Mr.. Johnson, you got your fins
| in for good share of it.
| Mr.. Johnson-Yes, | got my part of il.
| Is it not customary on obtaining possession
| Of woman in such cases to marry her to
| some one so as TO get better hold and
erade further legal proceedings
Witness-Yes, sir; they usually marry
her to one of their gang so as to get bet
| ter grip on her.
| On cross-examination witness said he
did not think Justice Henley or any other
| Judge received any of the money spent in
obtaining possession of a woman in such
cases. 1t was all absorbed by the officers.
| Interpreters, bulldozers, highbinders and
lawyers. The latter got away with the
lion S share It takes great deal of money
to run one of those cases.
Counsel for prosecution. in order 10 save
time admitted that ex-Chief of Police
Karcher and Health Officer Walter B. Fer
raj would corroborate Mr.. Riders testi-
| mony, so they were not placed upon the
stand.
Clinton L. White was placed upon the
stand to prove that the complaining wit
ness had borrowed money of him under
peculiar circumstances, and would not re-
pay il until sued. The testimony was OBJ
jected to and ruled out.
w. A. Anderson said that OH the night on
which Justice Henley issued a warrant for
Fong Lin, Chinaman came to his room
about II o clock for warrant, and he refused
toissue it. He did not know the Chinaman /;
did not know it was the same case The
Republican City Central Committee, he
said, met that night, and their acts had
somewhat disturbed his usual equanimity
and he did not investigate the matter
farther than to assure himself that it was
not case that warranted the issuing Of a
| warrant, and he refused 10 have anything
TO do with it. If General Carey, who was
an ex-District Attorney, had called and re-
quested it, he perhaps would have acted
differently. He was told that posters in
the Chinese language were posted up in
Chinatown, Offering reward of $500 for
the capture of the woman, Fong Lin.
Lee Hung, the Chinese interpreter, said
he heard posters announcing such re-
ward were posted in Chinatown.
II. L. Buckley said he did not issue the
warrant for the arrest of the Chinese
woman, and was not consulted in the mat
ter until after the arrest.
V. S. McClatchy said he was one OF the
proprietors of the Daily Bee He read the
article complained of as hbelous first at
Woodland, where he had been for day
or two previous. He had no bias or i'll
will against Henley.
j. NJ. Hawkins, member of the Bee
staff, said he remembered the incidents
connected with the Fong Lin examination,
as he was present. The article complained
of as libelous was written by him, and was
q true statement of facts. He said he had
never had feeling Of malice against Hen
ICY II WAS lIttl1 ldihtO Oh IIdL Il Iargc
sum Of money had been spent in the All
Tuck case. 1t was commonly reported that
posters in Chinatown Offered a reward of
$500 for Fong Lin. 1t was understood that
special officer Dolan was indignant because
he was likely to lose his share of the re-
ward. In reference to that portion of the
article which detailed the doings OF the
Chinese woman and her protectors after the
appearance, the recital was correct. Wit
ness knew them to be trse, because he went
in the hack with the party. His business
called him every day to the Police Court
Henley has often been in the City Attor-
ney's office and the Police Court Witness
had often stopped at the office of Henley
and found tag on the door say
ing that he was out of town,
or would be back al a certain hour
Finally witness gave up going to his Office
in quest of items, because he very rarely
saw him there. He had seen merchants
and lawyers waiting for Henley. Often
they had to go away unserved. 4 question
as 10 whether Henlevs condition was, on
days that he was in the Office. such as to
incapacta;e him for business. was obi ected
to by the prosecution, and the objection
sustained. He said every officer knew of
the tactics resorted to 10 obtain possession
OF Chinese woman, unless such official
NtiG lnt4ltsllfA ~ ltitSSS ildV
no recollection of any case in which q
Gilman an had another Chinaman arrested
for larceny, such cases being settled by
their own tribunals. He never knew or
heard of q case in which q Chinawoman
was arrested for larceny, unless the facts
developed that II was trumped-up charge.
such things were commonly spoken Of
and Henley must have heard OF them.
Witness knew the amounts Henley paid
into the city treasury from his reports, and
considered that he was drawing big sal
airy for doing nothing. He had said in
the article that Henley had again distin-
guished himself as tool of Chinese viii
| lainy, because the Justice had experience
III the All Tuck case-because the District
| and City Attorneys had not been consulted
about the issuance of the warrants in either
case; because the Fong Lin warrant was
| issued at midnight; because Justice Haines
| had declined to act, as the altered paDers
showed to Henley; because the City At
torney had refused TO assist the Chinese
| complainant. The previous scoring of
Justice Henley in the All Tuck case must
have been seen by him, and his conduct in
! that case was somewhat similar.
{. h. McClatehy, one of the proprietors
OF the Bee, was the next witness He sail
| the article published was given as a matter
I VI AtSHo HiA ~ cnOn W lllt
seemed to be wrongful act by an official.
and was intended for good purposes. The
witness never had any malice toward Hen
| ley.
Health Officer Ferral was sworn. He
was asked if Chinese women were bought
and sold. The Court sustained an obiec-
ton TO the question.
Sparrow Smith was put upon the stand
| 70 prove certain erookedness OF William
Henley while acting as. bookkeeper for
Adams, Mcneil & Co, but the questions
were objected TO and the objection sus-
| tanned.
Charles Heisen was placed upon the
stand to prove that Henley had refused 70
| pay his office rent, but he, likewise was
not permitted 10 testify. Witness was
asked regarding the proceedings of the
| Board of Trustees at the time the matte,
was laid before that body by his attorney
I'D. G. Hinkson. This, also. was ruled