The record-union., 1897-10-06

ness men would have more confidence
in it, and think the project good one
II his name was connected with it. 1t
spoke Of John We'll as connected with
It, He answered saying that the con-
tents of the letter were a surprise to
him, as it was the first intimation he
had received that his name had been
used in connection with the proposed
newspaper, and that he thought Mr..
Wells proposed connection with it
would give it standing.
Later he received a letter from Won
Arnold, stating that two Bee report
ers had asked him if witness had any
connection with the proposed paper,
and he had told them he had not. He
also had another note from Won Ar
mold, speaking of a dinner given by
witness at his house. at which the
matter was discussed, and saying that
the reporters were trying to trap him,
and asking if witness had written him
note which he inclosed, asking him
to come and see witness as soon as
he was well enough. He wrote back
that he had not written the note. He
had never had any dinner party at his
house at which the matter was dis
cussed, nor had Won Arnold ever been
in his house. He had only seen Won
Arnold at the times mentioned. He
had never been a candidate for Mayor.
Mr.. Reddy objected to this answer,
and also to a question as to whether
he had ever agreed to become inter-
ested in the proposed paper, on the
ground that the defendants mad not
charged in the article that ne had.
Mr.. Johnson read from the alleged
hbelous article on the Sd, and asked
if witness had ever been concerned in
any such combination as it charged
existed. Mr.. Reddy objected to the
question, and the noon hour having ar
rived a recess was taken till 1:30 p. m
In the afternoon Mr.. Bruner asked
that the plaintiff mark and point out
the portions of the alleged hbelous ar
ticle that he claims refer to plaintiff.
Mr.. Johnson said that the complaint
does that
The court said that, as far as his
recollection served, the complaint spec
ifies those parts.
Mr.. Reddy said the question was
whether Mr.. Weinstock was charged
with being concerned in the combine
ne dSSGIbGQ that QeISuQdIAlS ldQ 1AOI
charged plaintiff with any wrong act
or any act that was not consistent with
good citizenship. Such being the case,
there is no libel against him.
Mr.. Johnson said the question of libel
had been disposed of ON demurrer and
defendants should have presented their
arguments at that time and are too
late to do it now.
Mr.. Holl said that this very issue
having been tried before this court, it
was not at all likely that at this time
it will make new ruling at this time.
If there was no cause of action set out
in the complaint, there was no need
for any answer to have been put in.
The defendants should have at the time
the question was raised before, pre-
sented their arguments and objections
before the court. AS they did not, the
ruling of the court is conclusive in
this case and their remedy is an ap-
peal TO the Supreme Court.
Mr.. Reddy said that the court had
decided the article to be hbelous per
Sc. and such being the case, there was
no need of asking the question put to
witness. When the demurrer was
heard, the court decided that the ex-
cerpts taken constituted libel, but
since that time the whole article has
been offered and received and he con-
tended that the whole article would
not be found to constitute libel.
At the suggestion of Mr.. Johnson, the
question was waived for the present,
to be asked and argued when plaintiff
Il =
he should probably move for a nonsuit
at that time.
Mr. Weinstock said that he after
wards met Mr.. Sheehan and Won. Arm
old and the former stated that Won
Arnold had been called a fraud, but
that the $4,000 check had arrived,
showing his responsibility. Witness
partner, Mr.. Bonnheim, who was pre-
sent at the interview, asked Won Arm
old if he wrote witness a letter from
San Francisco and Won Arnold neither
affirmed nor denied it. He also evad-
ed the question as to whether or not
he was a detective in the employ of
the Bee"
Mr.. Johnson asked whether or not
detectives had been sent by defen-
udulS 10 ulS house anu also 10 inter-
view his private clerks in order to get
information. Witness answered that
they had and he knew it from the state
ments made by V. S. McClatchy at the
taking of his deposition.
Mr.. Johnson then asked the question
waived temporarily a short time be-
fore and receiving no answer, asked
other questions relating to the article,
as to whether plaintiff had any con-
nection with the proposed paper or
knew that it was to be run to protect
the alleged combination in the Board
of Trustees and the protection of Won
Arnold's proposed gambling house. He
asked if witness at any time or in any
manner had any connection with a
paper that was to be run on the basis
mentioned in the article. BY consent,
no answers were made to these quest
tions.
Y. s. McClatchy was called and asked
If any red pocket book had ever been
found by any one in the Bee" office
and if so, if it contained any such en-
tries as the article claimed it did.
The question was objected to by Mr..
Reddy on the ground that all the parts
Of the article not claimed by the com
plant to be false, were admitted to be
true and that therefore, the question
was irrelevant and incompetent.
The question went over for argument
at the same time the others We're ar