The record-union., 1897-10-07
STILL ARGUING The POINT.
ATTORNEYS SPEAK IN TURN
ALL DAY LONG.
Motion for a Nonsuit in the
Weinstock-McC1at Case Not
Yet Determined.

When Judge Hughes court convened
yesterday Mr.. Reddy renewed his ar
gument on his motion for a nonsuit IN
the Wefnstock- -McClatchy case.
He said there was no innuendo in
the article complained Of that related
to plaintiff. The innuendoes or paren-
theses contained in the various para
graphs cited in the complaint all re-
late to the Mayor, the Trustees or Won
Arnold and none Of them relate to
Mr. Weinstock Nor is there any pecu-
liar language used in the way .contem-
plated by the code. Such being the
case it is a plain. straight complaint,
founded on the rule of pleading There
being no ambiguity about it, 1t be-
comes purely a question of law, and Is
in the province of the court to decide.
The burden then rests on the plalntlff
to prove an actionable meaning to the
article.
He read from several authorities to
fortify his position and to the effect
that if the language was not sufficient
to convey to the ordinary mind the
idea of a libel an action could not hold.
In response to the allegation that the
article is false, malicious, etc, the an
swer denies that so far as relates to
the plaintiff they are false. The de-
PENDANTS claim that all that is said of
him IS true, but that it is not hbelous,
and they are not compelled to prove it,,
as it does not impute anything wrong
II the plaintiff.
He said that he had yesterday at
tempted to show that the article was
mere statement of opinion and not a
matter of fact. He would call the at
tention Of his honor to the article and
to that portion of it commencing with
the words What the Bee finds" in
contradistinction of the first part of
the article as to what the entries in the
red pocketbo0k indicated" He
claimed that tho latter part Of the ar
ticle showed that they accused Mr..
Weinstock of nothing and exonerated
him from suspicion. Neither in the
findings nor the statement of fact does
the name of Mr.. Weinstock appear, he
said. Reading the paragraph which
states that a daily newspaper is to
be started, and as the parties named
are all more or less interested, the in
ference is unavoidable as to the uses to
be made Of it
He claimed that only the persons in
terested were charged with being i'm
plicated, and that nowhere was Mr..
Weinstock's name mentioned. It was
easy to find out " no were interested.
and Mr.. Weinstock was not one of them.
He claimed that all their names were
mentioned in the paragraphs immedi-
ately preceding, being John A Shee-
nan, the Mayor, the combine in the
Board Of Trustees. All that is alleged
concerning Mr.. Weinstock is that he
was relied on by the combine for some
thing.
The court said it was a very impor-
tant point as to whether Mr. Weinstock
was included with the Mayor and Shee-
nan and he would like to hear Mr.. Red
dy's reading Of the paragraph, leaving
out the phrase set off by a comma.
MI. Reddy said that the innuendo of
plalntihs complaint set forth what
ne considered it to mean. Practical pol
ltics is now considered, he believed
morally right, and he did not consider
that statement that Weinstock and
Sheehan intended to control rnuniciDal
affairs and patronage did not impute
corrupt or immoral intent, for it might
be intended to do SO with the purest
motives. The intent of rogues TO use
honest men to further their ends. They
had not and did not accuse Mr.. Vein
stock of wrong intent or knowledge in
the matter, but, believing that rogues
were trying to use an honest man for
their own ends, the defendants wished
to relieve him of the rogues. There is
no indication that Mr. Weinstock had
any knowledge of the intentions of the
combine, nor was he charged with do
ing so. The endeavor of rogues to use
an honest man does not reflect on him.
so long as he does not fall in with them.
There is not a word or letter to show
that Mr.. Weinstock ever intended to
make arrangements with Leonard TO
run for Mayor, he said. In speaking of
the starting of the paper, he claimed
that the naming of Weinstock and
Grove L. Johnson as silent stockhold-
ers was simply a statement of the
plans of the combine, and did not i'm
pute anything wrong to him. An ef-
fort to induce man to come in is not
apt to be made to man who is al
ready in, and would be an indication
that Weinstock did not join the others.
There is nothing to show that he con-
sented.
He was sure that the language must
be greatly strained to show any
charges made against Mr.. Weinstoek.
1t has been said that the matter had
been adjudicated by Judge Johnson,
but he would show how small a por-
ton of the article had been passed
upon by him. In the first place. the
head notes were left out, and, next,
nothing was said Of the red pocket
book. The findings are left out, which
amount to an exoneration Of Mr. Vein
stock, and all that follows has been left
out. 1t is stripped he said, of every
thing that shows the fun intention OF
defendants.
He cited authorities relating to the
question as to whether or not the ar
ticle was Hbelous. and said it did not
charge him with violation of any OF
his duties as a citizen.
The court said that it wished to hear
from Judge Holl on two propositions
First, as 10 whether the expression OF
an opinion is libelous. and second. upon
Section and the right of the prosecu-
tion to introduce the testimony that had
been objected to.