The record-union., 1898-02-25
WILL ARGUE FOR TWO DAYS.
EVIDENCE CONCLUDED IN THE
LIBEL CASE.
Motion Of the Defense to be Per
mitted to Open and Close,
Denied.


johnson offered the entire Examiner
article Of April IA, 1897 part Of which
had been republished in the Bee" in
evidence
Attorney Nelson objected. contending
that the article was not in rebuttal, not
material, and in no wise connected with
the case.
Mr.. Johnson said the prosecution
could not anticipate what the defense
would be, and since that portion of the
article published in the Bee" had
been put in, he thought it but just
that the entire article should be put in,
in order to make its entire meaning
clear
Mr. Metson contended that it was a
rule Of law that the rebuttal should all
be put in at once, and not at two sew
eral times.
Mr. Johnson replied, after which the
court sustained the objection and the
article in question was ruled out.
Mr. Johnson next offered the judg-
ments in the two libel cases of Gilman
against McClatchy, and the case of
Royster against McClatchy in evidence,
for the purpose, he said, of showing
that Mr.. Weinstock had good grounds
for writing his Record Union" article,
and alleging that the Bee" was a lib
eler and a slanderer, if his statement
should be SO construed.
Judge Holl said the purpose of put
ting in the judgments in question, was
to show that on three several occasions
the defendants had been convicted of
libel. The prosecution, he said. stood
ready to prove by the judgments, that
Mr.. Weinstock, If he had said the pro-
plietors of the Bee were libelers, that
they We're so. and that Mr.. Weinstock
had done no wrong in repeating what
had on several occasions been said
openly by courts and juries.
Attorney Bruner said that Mr.. Vein
stock in his published statement, had
merely given his opinion in the mat
ter, and that neither of the judgments
referred to, had anything whatever to
do with the case of Weinstock against
McClatchy.
He said that in the cases of Gilman
against McClatchy and Royster against
McClatchy, the defense was made to
prove its justification beyond reason
able doubt, to a moral certainty. That,
he said was q poor rule of law, and not
considered in the trial of the present
case. The defense, he said, had at
tempted TO prove, and he believed, had
proved, that Mr.. Weinstock had not
been slandered
The court overruled the objection and
admitted the judgments referred, hold
ing that as the defense opened the
question the prosecution should be al
lowed TO show that the statement of
Mr.. Weinstock was sustained by evil
dence.
A KNOTTY PROBLEM.
The prosecution, in rebuttal, put H.
j. Goethe, Secretary of the Germania
Building and Loan Association on the
stand in order to fix the date of the
election of Joseph Hahn as a Director
of the association, Supervisor James
NJ Morrison having testified that his
conversation with John A Sheehan had
been held on the evening of Hahn 5
election, and that at that time Shee-
han had attempted to bribe him.
When Morrison was on the stand the
court ruled that if the conversation had
been held more than three years prior
TO April IA. 1897, the statute OF limita-
ton had run and that il should not
be admitted, and the prosecution called
the witness for the purpose of fixing
the date.
Attorneys Johnson and Metson ar
gued the point at some length, the lat
ter citing authorities to show that evil
dence brought out on cross-examina-
ton was not subject to rebuttal. and
the former contending that it was only
to fix by the witness, a date which the
defense had failed TO fix.
Judge Hughes said he would listen to
authorities as TO whether or not eN i
dence against which the statute of linn
itation had run could be admitted, but
that no other question wSe involved
To allow the attorneys time to present
such authorities, recess Of ten min
utes was declared
After the recess, Mr. Metson said
there seemed to be nothing in the booR-
bearing on the point at issue, but con-
tended that there was certainly moth
ing to show that the evidence should
not be admitted, even though the con-
versati0n had taken place ten years
ago. There was nothing, he said to
limit the defense in proving its allega-
ticns
Mr. Rruner said the law supposed
that the character a man had, remained
with him. and that the defense had a
right to prove it's allegation, regardless
of any limitation, and that none exist
ed in the case in question.
Mr.. johnson said the only presump-
ton in law OF mans character Is
that IL is good. The law does not he
said presume that man is HbeleI
after the statute of limitation had run
He argued that an act can not stand
against man all mis- life.
The court sustained the objection
holding that the defendants had right
10 justify their charge by proving the
truth Of the article Nothing could
be found TO show that the statute Of
limitation could run against a specific
charge made, that at a certain time a
conversation took place. The witness
was excused.
Charles f. Phipps Superintendent and
one of the directors of Weinstock Lubir
e. Co. was placed on the stand and
testified respecting the Won Arnold let
ter. Mr. Weinstock, after a meeting
Of the Board of Directors and after
having received the Won Arnold letter
said to his associates that they might
possibly be able 10 give him some light
respecting its contents. He had ther
read the letter and the directors were
not long in reaching a conclusion.
CONCERNING CONCLUSIONS.
a question as to whether the conclu
sion arrived at was that the letter had
been written by crank was objected
to. and a long argument between th'
attorneys followed.
I,,aoa Holl eonfended that the prose