The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-02-16

ness had escorted Brown out of his
house, to the porch, the latter said he
understood that the proposed newspa-
per was secondary matter, and that
it was aimed to be a protection &c a
gambling hell or concert hall. Brown
had brought the matter up and the wit
ness inquired how a newspaper could
be protection to such a place. Brown
replied that he had heard it was in
tended to get influential persons be-
! hind the scheme. Brown had volun-
tarily made the statement to the wit
ness, after the latter had answered the
questions the former said he had been
instructed to ask
In relation to that part of the in
terview in which Mr.. Weinstock was
alleged to have volunteered the infor-
nation that a man had called on him
and attempted to interest him in the
establishment of daily paper, but that
| the person was not Sheehan, the wit
ness said he had answered direct
question and had volunteered nothing.
( Then Attorney Nelson again start
ed in on the visit paid to the witness
by Leonard, and brought up the ale
| CATION made in the Bee that he said
he had been asked to consider the prop
osition of establishing newspaper and
to put money into it. The witness said
he had never been requested to put
money into the concern.
| AT this point Judge Holl interjected
an objection, claiming that Attorney
Nelson was going over and over evil
dence that had been fully explained.
He was taking up, Judge Holl said.
| 10 Of aliaifinU
new facts.
| Attorney Johnson said that since the
second days examination there seemed
| to be an attempt to try the matter OF
veracity between Mr.. Weinstock and
Mr. Brown, and that the real cause
at issue had been lost sight of.
The attorneys for the defense con-
tended that they were merely asking
questions on points brought out on di-
rect examination, and expanded upon
in cross-examination; that Mr.. Johnson
had taken up the articles published in
| the Bee" paragraph by paragraph,
and that they were comparing the wit
ness answers at that time with the
deposition previously made by him
They contended that they were not try
ing to take up the time of the court un-
necessarily.
The court ruled that all questions
should be confined to what portions of
| the articles were correct, and what
were incorrect.
| A question as to whether the witness
knew that Mr.. We'll was to be Presi-
dent of the proposed company and Mr.
| Sheehan, the manager, was objected
to by the attorneys for the prosecution.
| The court ruled that any questions
which had been asked the witness dur
ing interviews, and which had been pre-
served by the defendants, would nave
to be produced provided he was ques-
toned concerning them, but that he
would have to rely on his memory Tor
his answers to the same.
| The witness further testified that he
knew from Won Arnold's letter, that MS
| CWeinstocks) name was to be with
drawn from the proposed Board of Dl-
rectors, and that of John We'll substl-
tuted. He had no recollection of Shee-
han having told him on February 18th
that We'll was to be President, but said
Sheehan might have said so.
AN EXPLANATION.
| Attorney Nelson called attention to
| that part of the first interview with
| Mr.. Brown in which the witness was
alleged to have said that he had never
received any communication from Won
Arnold other than the letter, and SAID
the witness had on Friday last, testl-
fed that it was substantially correct.
The attorney wanted to know now the
witness could make the statement ac-
cord with the fact that he had also re-
| ceiyed a telegram
The witness said the statement meant
that prior to receiving the letter ne hao
had no communication from Won Arm
Old. and referred to a subsequent issue
of the Bee" to show that such an eX-
pIanation had been made at the time.
Even the Bee explains that mat
ter" spoke up Attorney Johnson.
Yes" replied Attorney Nelson, out
the Bee has sting"
"Oh. no it hasn't-not here!' repiled
Mr. Johnson. I'VE are in court now"
ADVERTISING CONTRACT.
Attorney Nelson reverted to Vein
stocks article in the Record Union
and asked whether the witness had not
from that date cancelled his advertising
contracts with the Bee"
Mr.. Weinstock replied that he had
| not.
Attorney Nelson asked whether or
not verbal agreement, or contract
| for about 50. 600 worth Of advertisement
/ had not been cancelled at that time
The witness replied that to his knoWl-
edge, nothing of the kind had peen
done. lie explained that while he was
President of Weinstock, Lubin & Co.
| the advertising business was lest to Mr..
Skeels. He did not remember having
| told Mr.. Skeels to take additional space
| in the Bee" and had no recollection
of giving the latter named gentleman
| instructions to cancel any additional
| space which might have been arranged
| for.
! Attorney Nelson presented notice
written by Mr.. Skeels TO the Bee,
directing that after April l, 1897. only
the minimum space called for in the
contract would be required by Vein
stock, Lubin & Co.
Mr.. Weinstock recognized the note
as having been written by Mr. Skeels,
! but suggested that that gentleman
would be the best witness in the mat
| ter.
/ In answer to a direct question by
/ Attorney Nelson, Mr.. Weinstock said
+, he had never seen Won Arnold prior to
the 1st of February. 1897, and at that
! time did not know there was such a
man in existence.
! Attorney Metson inquired of the wit
ness if the communication published
| in the Record Union on March 21st
was not formulated on March 10Th. The
witness said he thought that such was
| the case, and that, according to his
diary. he had sent a copy of the ar