The record-union., 1897-10-09
STILL BEFORE THE JURY.
WEINSTOCK-McCLATCHY CASE
STILL UNFINISHED.
Attorney Reddy Finishes His Ar
gument and II. w. Johnson
Begins His Address.

When Judge Hughes court was called
to order yesterday morning, Elwood
Bruner resumed his argument ON The
fourth para graph in the article under
consideration in the Weinstock-Mc-
CATCHY case.
He said this was the one on which
the plaintiff rests the burden of mis-
case. They We're simply to take II up
and construe the language of it under
the ordinary grammatical rules They
could not leave out a parenthetlcal
clause and construe it without that
clause, but must take the whole SEN
tence
He had prepared slips of large print,
containing the sentence, which he
pinned on the blackboard for the jury
to look at He claimed that In order
TO construe the sentence according to
plaintiffs views, the clause who
counted on James G. Davis for support"
must be considered parenthetical and
left out. 1t was just as reasonable a
construction. he claimed, to leave out
the next clause also and make it read
that a combination has been formed
by the Trustees referred to, to control
the fail election and the city patron
age" The plaintiff could not, with
out forcing the paragraph, maintain
his contention. Where two construc-
tions could be placed on the sentence,
one making it libelous and the other
innocent, the jury should give the ben
eft Of the doubt and take the latter.
The whole article, however, must be
considered by the jury, he said, in ord
er to arrive al its meaning Plaintiff
had expected to introduce only the Lor-
tons included in his complaint and
make defendant prove the allegations.
but he had not been able to do so and
it must all be taken and the parts not
declared false must be considered
proved. Mr.. Holl said that it was ev-
identity the intention of defendants TO
drag Mr.. Weinstock into the affair The
articles show, however, that the man
whom the defendants started in to in
vestigate was John A Sheehan and not
Mr.. Weinstock, the Mayor or the Trus-
tees. AS to the insinuation that some
one had furnished money for the in
vestfgation, in order to injure Mr.
Weinstock, he wanted to say that
every dollar expended in the matter
had been by c. K. and V. s. McClatehy
alone and unaided. AS for Mr.. Hollis
attack on newspapers. there are good
ones as we'll as bad ones and if there
was scheme on foot to start news
paper for corrupt purposes, it was light
for defendants to find out if there was
a combination of the sort and warn
Mr.. Weinstock and others against as
sociation with set of scoundrels He
should have thanked them for the
warning and given them all the infor-
nation he could to aid them.
He conceded the spotless integrity
and high reputation of Mr.. Weinstock,
but he would place beside him John
We'll, a man of equally high charac-
ter, who does not think his character
has been injured through being men
toned as a prospective stockholder in
the proposed newspaper 1t was a
bad thing, he thought, for the commu-
nifty that Mr.. Weinstock had brought
his case into court, instead of letting
Mayor Hubbard or the Trustees bring
the first suit.
He claimed that the testimony of DR..
Van Norden did not establish malice.
1t is simply to the effect that defen-
dants told him they were not satisfied
that Mr. Weinstock was innocent of
connection with the proposed newspa-
per, and not to the effect that he was
guilty of completely with corrupt COM
binations He denied that they had
libeled the plaintiff. and said that they
held that Mr.. Weinstock's character
was spotless both in business and pri-
vate life and stood high above re-
proaeh. A verdict in favor of the de-
PENDANTS would be the most complete
vindication of his reputation and he
asked the jury to give it, in order that
his character might stand forth before
the world undimmed. The hands of
the defendants ought to be held up by
every honest citizen Of Sacramento for
their investigation of this matter.
MR.. REDDY'S ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Reddy said he had been most
kindly treated by counsel on both sides
and been thereby enabled to assist in
throwing some light on the matter
under consideration. There was no
wish to attack the character of the
plaintiff for he and the others had only
the highest regard for his character.
1t was strange to find him coming into
this court, asking to have language
tortured into such shape as to be a libel
on his character. He recognized the
fact that there are supersensitive peo-
pie, who resent and feel deeply what
they fancy may be an attack on their
regulations. There was no intent to
injure or defame his character, but if
he thought there had been, he was
right to come here and ask for justice
to be done him.
When counsel for defense had in his
opening address imputed to the defense
a line of conduct it did not intend 10
pursue, he thought ii was unjust. he
had no right TO put a libelous pen IN
the hands Of the defense and say that
it would hold a position that it distinct
ly denied holding He had been charged
with being sensitive regarding the
press. but he was no more so than the
people of the United States when they
made laws and Constitutions concern
ing it. A so-called political boss, he
held, was no more than leader, un-
less he makes himself so. There must
be leaders in political organizations, or
A NM ANN n IKE EZE n 60