The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-02-19
ADJOURNED TILL WEDNESDAY
EVIDENCE IN THE WEINSTOCK-
McCLATCHY CASE.
". s. McClatchy Explains WHY He
Wrote the Alleged Libelous
Article.

When the Weinstock-McC IL
bel case was resumed in Judge Hughes
court yesterday morning, BARLEY Cav
anaugh was placed on the stand. Dur
ing the morning session the Judge an
nounced that at 4:30 o'clock p. m, an
adjournment would be taken until IU
O'clock next Wednesday morning.
BARLEY Cavanaugh was the first wit
ness called He testified that he knew
c. E. Leonard, and that he had sold a
one-half interest in safe to him. He
however, did not dispose of the half
interest belonging to Angus Ross.
On cross examination he said he had
received SO for his interest in the safe.
The witness was excused.
Fred B. Adams was next put on the
stand. and said he knew there had
been a safe in Leonard's possession
some time last fall, at whicS time he
(Adams) had sold it on an order from
the court. Further questions were OBJ
jected TO and the objections sustained.
The witness said he obtained the safe
from Leonard, but did not know how
long it had been in his possession. No
receipt had passed between himself
and Leonard at the time the transfer
was made. A number of objections
to similar questions being sustained,
the witness was excused.
c. f. Leonard failed to answer when
his name was called, and an attach
ment was issued for him, and pending
his arrival J. NJ. Morrison was placed
on the stand by the defense.
Supervisor j. M. Morrison testified
that he had held his present official po-
sition fer over five years. He knew
John A. Sheehan by sight, and knew
that he was connected with the Sun
day News" Witness had. about four
years ago, had a conversation with
Sheehan respecting an article pub
lished in the News" The converse
ton was held, witness said during the
holiday season in 1894, probably in the
month of November, and was COM
menced in Wissemann's saloon. Shet-
han told witness that he (Morrison) was
young in politics, and that he (Sheehan)
could help him-and be of benefit to
him. Sheehan said he needed 500.
Witness asked him if he wanted it as
a loan, and Sheehan said he did not.
Witness said he told Sheehan that if
he wanted 500 and would give a re-
ceipt for it. he would let him have it,
away Sheehan replied that receipts
did not go.
VERY REMOTE TESTIMONY.
Mr. Morrison was excused for the
time being and the defense proposed to
offer a copy of the News" following
the conversation, in evidence.
Attorney Johnson made a vigorous
objection to the admission of the paper
as evidence. He said the original ac-
ton had been almost lost sight of, and
that for ten days, charges against c.
f. Leonard had been tried, and that
the defense were now attempting to
try charges against John A. Sheehan.
The cause in hand, he said, was wheth-
er or not the Bee" had libeled H.
Weinstock, and he contended that no
article published in the News" could
be material. Let Morrison and Shee-
han, he said, fight out their own bat
tie. but not in the case of Weinstock
VS.. McClatchy. Even supposing that
Sheehan did strike Morrison for 500,
the attorney said, and supposing he
did say that he could be of use to him.
that did not make him out to be a
blackmailer.
Attorney Bruner in reply, said the de-
tense had proven and intended to prove
the truth of articles published, right
along The proposed evidence, he con-
tended. was entirely material. The
defense proposed to show, he said, that
Sheehan's conversation had carried
with it a threat, and that Sheehan
would not have asked for the money
without a cause. 1t was intended to
follow up the preliminary questions by
introducing copy Of the paper to
show that Sheehan had followed his
demand for money by vile attacks on
the witness in the News" He con-
tended that the law held that an at
tempt to commit crime was punishable,
and that only the degree Of the Of
tense could make a difference. He
held that 1t was bribery not only to
receive. but TO ask for money.
Judge Holl and Attorney Metson also
took part in the argument, and at its
conclusion Judge Hughes sustained the
objection on the ground that anything
published in the News" in 1894 was
exceedingly remote, and that the line
would have 10 be drawn somewhere,
otherwise the case would string out 10
an interminable length, and take in
evidence of all kinds which might by
any possibility be connected with the
case on trial.
Then Morrison again took the stand
and in answer TO further question said
nothing had been said by he or Shee-
han about any note.
On cross examination the witness said
he had met John a. Sheehan prior &c
the conversation before recited, and had
known him a year or so. Sheehan had
never intimated before the conversation
that he wanted money. The witness
had not compiled with Sheehan's re-
quest. but had told him he would Dor
row the money for him provided he
would give a receipt for it. Witness
could not fix the date of the converse
ton. but said that il was followed by
bitter, vindictive attacks in the paper
conducted by Sheehan.
The court warned the witness to use
no bitter expressions in giving his
testimony. to which he replied that he
did not know that he had done so.
Witness said he had not arrested
Sheehan at or after the conversation
in question, but that about a year age
ne had appeared before the Grand Jury
and charged him with libel This was