The record-union., 1898-02-11

sent, and did not handle any of the
papers himself. There might have been
extra copies sent to his office, for pur-
poses of reference, bat he was not sure
about it. He could not recall having
seen any extra copies.
A question as to whether or not the
witness had talked about the letter he
had received from Won Arnold, subse-
quent to the publication of his state
ment in the Record Union," met with
an objection from the attorneys of the
prosecution. 1t was contended by them
that Mr.. Weinstock had a perfect right
to talk about the Won Arnold letter or
any other letter, and that the course of
questions could be neither in mitigation
or justification.
The attorneys for the defense, con-
tended that Mr. Weinstock, by submit
ting his statement for publication, was
attempting to try his case out of court,
and that anything said by him referring
to the matter was admissible as evil
dence. Attorney Bruner said that the
statement published in the Record
Union was clearly libel SO far as
Mr.. Weinstock was concerned, and that
it was only question Of degree.
Attorney Johnson said it was incon-
ceivable why anybody should say that
because the witness had talked about
the matter out of court, it was libel
upon the defendants.
Judge Hughes held that Mr.. Vein
stock had an entire right to talk about
the case or publish an article in a news
paper, and that the fact that he had
talked about the matter would be in
admissible as evidence unless it was
shown that he had endeavored i'll 50
doing 10 influence public opinion.
Continuing. the witness said that sub
sequent to the filing of the complaint
on March 10Th he had not told a large
number of people of the community and
county that the McClatchys We're libel
erS.
After considerable quibbling among
the attorneys the witness said he had
refrained from talking about the mat
ter TO his friends, and confined his con-
versation on the matter to answering
questions. He had discussed the mat
ter with four or five friends, aside from
his family and business associates.
Subsequent to the filing of the COM
plaint he carried with him neither the
same.
\ FISHING EXCURSION.
After a short recess Mr.. Weinstock' 8
diary for 1897 was produced in court,
and with it before him Attorney Nett
son reverted to the 2Sth of February,
at which time a Bee" reporter had
twice called upon him and showed him
slip of paper containing writing. The
witness testified that he afterwards saw
substantially the same writing contain
ed on the slip of paper in the Bee.
The nature of the writing was not
brought out.
The witness furt her testified that he
had never consulted Attorney Albert M.
Johnson with relation to the matter.
He then explained several passages in
the diary. and attempted to make out
a passage relating to the Won Arnold
matter, which had been stricken out.
Judge Holl objected to the attorneys s
dragging the diary and going on a fish
ing excursion without getting even a
nibble. He held that the diary was pro-
duced to enable the witness to refresh
his memory and not to be put in evil
dence.
L it item tlidt iidu Dttn CdICciicu
showed that on March 10Th Sheehan
had said he expected to be indicted by
the Grand Jury. The witness explained
that the item had been transcribed, and
would be found on the copy submitted
to the attorneys for the defense at the
morning session.
The court ruled that the questions
relating to the diary were immaterial,
and after the erased article being
marked as an exhibit, the attorneys
took up the issues of the Bee" Of
the I'd, 4th. 9th and 9th OF March,
1897, and the witness said he thought
he had read them all The articles re-
ferred to what was termed The Com
bine,' one being headed. More of the
Combine" another "Sheehan, the Pi-
rate" and still another, Leonard Is
Guilty.
The witness said Win j. Davis had
called on him and asked for an inter-
view, al a time when he was very busy,
and that he had told him that an in
terview published in the Bee" on
March Sd. in which he had answered
categorically a set of specified ques-
tions, was substantially correct, and
referred him to the article.
Attorney Mettson next questioned the
witness respecting a conversation held
with c. L. Leonard on February 9th,
and read from a deposition taken be-
fore Notary Public, in which the wit
ness had recounted the conversation.
The witness said the deposition was
correct, and that at the time it was
made his memory was much fresher
1ar tor L. =,
The witness said he recollected a re-
porter of the Bee asking him for a
copy of the Won Arnold letter. and that
he had declined to allow a copy made,
and stated decidedly that the letter
was no. written for publication. To
the best of his recollection he had not
told the reporter that in giving the let
ter for publication he would betray a
confidence reposed in him. He believed
he had told the reporter that he had
been approached by parties with refer
ence 10 establishing a daily newspaper
He probably said that man had called
on him, and Leonard had called.
Attorney Mettson inquired whether
or not the witness had declined to give
the name Of the man who had called
Attorney johnson objected and said
the Bee" had no right whatever more
than a private individual to demand
the name of any person. The objection
was overruled and the witness said he
might or might not have declined to
give the name of the person who had
called On him with reference to the
establishment of a new daily news
paper The person who had called on
him, he said, was c. e. Leonard
In answer TO questions the witness
said that at a succeeding interview
with the same reporter he had been
asked whether the man who had called
was Sheehan or We'll