The record-union., 1897-10-05
WEINSTOCK M'CLATCHY SUIT
BEGUN YESTERDAY IN JUDGE
HUGHES COURT.
Most Of the Day Consumed in Ar
gutng Admission OF the Whole
Article Complained or.

The trial Of the $4,000 libel case of
H Weinstock against V. s and c. K.
McClatchy was begun in Judge Hughes
court yesterday morning. Most OF the
forenoon session was taken up by the
reading of the complaint, which
embraced most of the Bees
article of March Sd on the
alleged finding Of Won Arnold's pocket
book with memorandum involving sew
eral Of the City Trustees. ]. A. Shee-
han, Won Arnold and H Weinstock in
q newspaper scheme that was TO afford
protection to the combine" in certain
Illegal schemes.
Holl &. Dunn and Hiram W. Johnson
are counsel for the plaintiff, and +.
Reddy and Bruner & Bruner for the
defense.
c. K. McClatchy, managing editor of
the Bee" was called to the stand and
asked who were the proprietors of the
paper, and he replied that himself and
V. S. McClatchy are the proprietors.
He was shown copy of the paper of
March Sd, and asked TO identify it,
which he did
Judge Holl then offered to introduce
the paper in evidence as containing the
article on which the action for libel is
based.
Mr.. Reddy objected to the introduc-
tfon Of the paper on the ground that the
article therein varied from the quota
tions in the complaint alleged to have
bsen taken therefrom, and the entire ar
ticle embraced in the complaint is placed
within quotation marks. Counsel pro-
oeeded to point out in the complaint the
fTqnC1Trs1 oip 10 at
some length in support of his conten-
tion. He insisted that the entire article
should be introduced by the plaintiff.
H. w. Johnson, of counsel for plain
tiff, replied that they pleaded only those
portions Of the article of March Sd that
contain what are claimed to be Ibelous
attacks on H. Weinstock. The article
covers an entire page of the newspaper.
and much Of it refers to persons and
subjects that do not concern Mr.. Wein-
stock.
Mr.. Reddy cited various authorities
in support of his position, but said the
defense was willing to allow the plead
ings to be amended so as to cover the
point at issue. The quotation marks in
the complaint are not in the printed ar
ticle, though the complaint alleges that
the words and figures as following, to
wit"
Counsel Hou said that, as he under
stood the point of opposing counsel, the
plaintiff had not included in his COM
plant the entire article complained of.
Judg Hughes said the point made was
that the entire article had not been pub
lished and that the fact that only ex-
aY.ro+= of 1e ri T,o Il
Mr.. Holl said that it went without say
ing that to publish the whole article was
useless. If it was for the purpose Of
notice or information it could not bene-
fit defendants, for they, themselves.
We're publishers of the article and knew
fully what it was and needed no infor-
nation on the subject. The different
sections of the code cover the whole
matter and if the rules were enforced
most rigidly all that would be needed in
the matter to meet the technical point
would be to insert a few lines stating
that among other things, the paper
published so and So" The principal
averments Of the complaint show that
other matter was published in the ar
ticle. The defendants have set forth in
the answer the whole article, showing
in if.
Attorney Bruner said that the COM
plant itself does not show that such
all article as is quoted from was pub
Hshed. Whatever purpose may be en-
tertained by the defense in asking that
the complaint be amended, it has the
right 10 ask that the pleadings be cor
rect Il did not propose to be respon-
for he,
was not contained in the article pub
lished
The court thought that the complaint
should have contained a statement that
the matter quoted was not the entire
article. He thought, however, that the
other averments brought it under the
provisions Of Section 400 and that there
was not a material variance. He would
therefore overrule the objection.
SIR. Reddy then asked the plaintiff to
put on the entire article as part Of their
case. He contended that the plaintiff
could not put in an extract from the
article and ask it declared a libel, when
the context might put an entirely diff
ferent face upon it.
Mr.. johnson said he simply desired
to introduce only the portions ineIud-
ed in the complaint
The court ordered the entire article
read at demand Of defendants, subject
to plaintiffs objection
Defendants attorneys objected ia
having it read on their demand, claim
ing that plaintiff must introduce IT as
part of his evidence. 1t was not fair
to Introduce part of il that would con-
vey an entirely different meaning from
the whole article.
Mr.. johnson said that no amount OF
specious reasoning on part of defen-
dant's counsel should induce him and
his associate counsel to try any charges
against any other persons than H
Weinstock. He did not propose TO try
the matter before the court is tht
charges against II. Weinstock, and
those against other persons have moth
ing to do with IT, He did not objec
to the reading of the entire article, bu
he did object against its being intro
duced as part of plaintiffs case agains
his objection. Let them introduce th'
whole article as part of their defense
Plaintiff is ready to meet them when
ever they do so, and let the jury de.
termine the matter.
Mr.. Bruner read a number of decis'
ions from English law TO prove that the
entire article should be made part Of
plaintiffs case.
The court considered that under th'
1 II -.