The record-union., 1897-10-06
PLAINTIFF CLOSES HIS CASE.
THE WEINSTOCK MCLATCHY
CASE PROGRESSING
Defendants Attorneys Move for p
Nonsuit, Claiming There
Was No Libel.

Was No Libel.
When Judge Hughes court convened
yesterday morning Attorney Reddy was
not ready, at least he was not pres
ent, and a short delay ensued, as At
torney Bruner said he thought his col
league was on his way.
c. K. McClatchy resumed the stand
and identified a Bee of March 18th
as having been published by him and
his brother Mr.. Johnson offered the
paper in evidence in order TO show
malice, Offering the whole article IN
evidence. It was accepted without OBJ
lection and Mr.. johnson read it to the
jury.
H Weinstock was the next witness
A question as to the business he is en-
gagged in was objected to by Attorney
Reddy as irrelevant. not being alleged
In the complaint. Mr.. Johnson said it
was proposed to show his rank and
condition in life, that the jury might
consider whether it enhanced the in
jury. The Supreme Court has passed
upon the point, allowing such tesu-
mony.
lowed the question, and the witness
answered that he was President of
Weinstock. Lubin &, Co. and also Pres
ident of the California Fruit Growers
Association. His business extended. he
said. all over the coast and into every
hamlet west of the Rocky Mountains.
He received a letter from Charles j.
Won Arnold, which he produced, before
he had ever met him or knew who
he was, or that there was such man
living.
Mr.. Johnson read the letter to the
jury. Tt spoke Of his proposed gam
bling scheme and arrangements with
the Trustees. 1t also bore a memo
randum in pencil, to the effect that it
had been compared with the original by
Y. S. and found to correspond, and had
been mailed in the hotel letter box.
Witness said that he had not at the
time ever spoken to any one of being
a candidate for Mayor or had any in
tention Of doing So He read the letter
over two or three times, and gave it
up as a sort of Chinese puzzle. He
read it also to a friend who was pres
ent
Mr. Reddy objected to the answer
and Mr.. Johnson retorted that this was
the initiatory step of the plot by the
McClatchys and letter written under
their dictation to drag him into foul
conspiracy and involve him and injure
his good name. It was perfectly COM
petent to show how he received this let
ter from a man whom he did not know
ever existed
Mr.. HoH said that the letter was a
decoy one, part of a plot concocted by
defendants to entrap him into an ad-
mission that he knew something of the
alleged schemes of others. 1t was a
wonder he had not fallen into the cum
ningly cOntrived plot, but he did not.
He knew nothing Of the matter and
showed the letter to a friend, telling
him he did not understand it. 1t was
perfectly competent to prove his act.
although what his friend said could
not be evidence.
The court sustained the objection,
and ordered the answer stricken out.
Witness continued that he did not
answer the letter, and subsequently re-
ceived a telegram from Won Arnold.
He produced the telegram, which asked
if he had received Won Arnold's let
tween the receipt of the let
ter and the telegram, and sub
sequently wrote to Won Arnold saying
that he did not understand his letter,
and had never before heard of his
project About two weeks afterwards
Won Arnold called in company with
John A Sheehan and a Mr.. Schumann,
a former ernploye, and met him in the
basement of his place of business.
Mr.. Reddy objected to the conversa-
ton being put in evidence, as it was
not in presence of the defendants.
Mr.. Johnson retorted that Won Ar
mold was their agent, as admitted by
them, and Mr.. Reddy said they might
question it.
The court said the defendants ac-
knowledged in the Bee" Of the 18th
that Won Arnold was their agent and
the evidence sought to be introduced
was only a link in a chain which, when
all in, might or might not prove NAL
ice.
Witness said that Mr.. Sheehan stated
that Won Arnold had come to the city
for the purpose of starting a newspa
per, and was looking around the city.
He had been looking at the Clunie prop
erty, but found Clunie a hard man to
deal with and held it too high. Wit
ness said that there was other prop
erty on K street that might, perhaps,
be bought cheaper. They said they had
not thought of that and would look
around. Witness was very busy and they
left without more conversation. After
wards witness had a conversation with
Won Arnold about March 4th or 9TH.
He afterwards received another COM
munication from Won Arnold, which he
produced, and which stated that he was
confined to his bed and would like wit
ness to call on him and advise him con-
cerning the newspaper deal he and
Sheehan had spoken of. He replied,
declining to go, and stating that if Won
Arnold wished any information, and
would state what it was, he would an
swer the questions asked. That night
he received another letter, which he
produced. It stated that Won Arnolds