The record-union., 1898-02-12

He had not authorities by him from
which TO quote in the morning but he
had them now and would like to have
the court hear them. He quoted from
the code to show that anything relating
to the letter was res gestae, and should
be considered. He also quoted from
"'Greenleaf on Evidence to show that
there was a class OF evidence connected
with a question that should not be con-
sidered as hearsay as it forms part of
the res gestae and forming the prin-
cipal part of the act The intent is an
essential part of the act and must be
considered, and this is true in criminal
as we'll as civil law. The law says that
explanation is allowed.
In the 93d Cal. Reports. D. 400. Burll-
hardt VS.. Falkerth, this principle IS
enunciated, and it states that a wit
ness may be examined as to what the
intent was in committing an act where
the act is material. So in the Doth Cal,
p. 642, Gillian VS.. Sigman, it is stated
that the facts, statements and circum-
stances growing out of an action are
part of the res gestae. In this case
the defendant has as much right 10
show why he did not surrender the let
ter as to show anything else concerning
it. Under these citations he asked
the court to allow the witness to state
why he held fast to the letter, and what
he did with it, and why.
| Mr.. Mettson said he did not dispute
the law as quoted, but it was the appli
cation of it that was disputed. He OBJ
i jected to witness being asked why he
| did a certain thing, and telling what
he thought at a certain time
Bruner said that under every rule of
law that he knew of, plaintiff could not
be allowed to answer the question as 20
whether he had ever, at any time, con-
templated taking part in the establish
| ing of newspaper.
Mr.. Holl said the defense was trying
to prove through this letter that plain
tiff was shield and protection to bood-
| lerS and blackmailers and Mr.. Bruner
interrupted him, saying that the COM
plaint was that ''he appeared before the
community as such Mr.. Holl re-
tor;ed that they could not avoid the
libel by such an excuse The stating
| that he appeared" to do so is the same
in law as saying that he did so.
| The court said there was no difference
before the law in the two statements.
| Mr.. Holl said the defense was i'm
| pugning the motive of Mr.. Weinstock
in not delivering up the letter to de-
PENDANTS. and he had therefore a right
to explain his motive. If what they
charge is true, Mr.. Weinstock is guilty
of crime, and he should be allowed
| to prove that it is not true
| The court said he did not see any
reason to change his ruling of this
morning, and would sustain the obiec-
| ton.
OBJECTIONS IN PLENTY.
| Mr.. Johnson asked Mr. Weinstock TO
state what his motive was in retaining
the letter of Won Arnold, and refusing
| 10 deliver it to the McClatchys He
also asked him to state why he pub
lished his communication in the Rec
! ord Union, and also why he refused
| TO deliver the letter to the Bee" re-
porter. He further asked if he had any
| intention in refusing to deliver the let
/ ter OF shielding or protecting c. +.
Leonard or John Sheehan. The cues
lions were all objected to, and the OBJ
jections We're sustained.
! SHIELDED NO ONE.
| Mr.. Johnson asked if he did anything
and also if he did anything to shield
| Leonard or Sheehan. He answered that
! he did not. Mr.. Johnson asked him
| to state his reasons why he did not de-
| liver the letter at the demand of the
| McClatchys
| The court said he could answer as to
| facts, but not to conclusions. and MIR
| Weinstock said it would be difficult for
! him To 6rS w ba h,,+
! his best 1t was a fact that he ra-
| ceived the letter; a fact that he re-
| garded it as the production Of a dis
eased mind; a fact that it contained
| damaging charges against certain per-
! sons, which he did not believe to be
! true
| Mr.. Mettson objected to the latter
| part of the answer, but was overruled
witness resumed that he considered
! 1t would be a libel and an outrage #,
allow a letter to be published that mada
| criminal charges against individuals of
| whose guilt or innocence he had no
| knowledge
| lie was not allowed to state his rea-
sons for publishing his communication
| in the Record Union" but stated 4b.t
| he retained the letter as a curio. 70
/
| sometimes received. He heard moth
/ ing after his answer to Won Arno,d,s
/ telegram, until February 9th. when he
| received Two letters and answered
/ them, saying that he was surprised to
| ma that his name had been used IN
/ connection with the paper enterprise.
! he had given no authority in any way
for using his name in connection with
/ II. his answer 10 these letters went
] into the hands of the McClatchys He
! received letter on March 1st from Won
Arnold, saying that he had been an
preached by two Bee" reporters and
| asked whether witness had become in
| terested in the newspaper scheme with
/ him and that he had told them witness
was not interested. He did not an
sver the letter, as he did not think ii
necessary. He next received letter
| from Won Arnold speaking Of the re-
porters trying to find out about a con-
versation between him and witness a.
a little dinner party at the house Of
/ witness. Won Arnold had never been
/ to dinner at the house of witness, nor
/ had witness ever taken dinner with Won
Arnold.
The letters and several others were
admitted in evidence among them one
With Il note indorsed saying that Won
Arnold thought some one was trying to
play trick on him, and asking if wit
/ ness had sent him the inclosed notes.
/ Witness did not answer the letters. He
never saw Won Arnold on any occasion
except the 10th Of February and the
1lth Of March, on which occasions he
! was very busy and on fha otbar NJ