The record-union., 1898-02-11
WEINSTOCK ON THE STAND.
THE CENTRAL FIGURE IN THE
'BEE' LIBEL SUIT.
Said He Had Nothing Whatever to
Do With Won Arnold OF
His Schemes.

AtQ5DCS. SCSlClNSAy iiAOA
the court had been in session five min
utes there was a warm passage of
words in which all the attorneys con-
nected with the case took part, anu
which was only settled by the court
after the talk between Attorneys john
son and Mettson had become personal
to an extreme seldom reached in courts.
SHORT, SHARP WORDS.
The passage occurred over question
asked Angus Ross, who was the first
witness called for the detense at the
morning session, by which it was indi-
rectly attempted to show that G. r.
Leonard. who at the time referred to
was a member Of the Board of Trustees,
was Instrumental in having the gam
bling houses re-opened in the latter
part of 1896, or the early part of 1897.
after they had been closed by order OF
the Mayor.
In answer to preliminary questions,
Ross testified that during the last
three months of 1896 and the early part
Of 1897 he had conducted club rooms
in Sacramento, at which gambling was
sometimes INDUCED in. He knew Z.
E. Leonard.
Attorney Bruner asked the witness
1896 or the first part of 1897, the
games were closed, and subsequently
allowed to reopen by somebody in au-
thority.
Attorney Johnson objected, stating
that the prosecution was ready to ac-
cept any proof regarding Mr.. Vein
stock. but it had not been shown
that Weinstock had been connected
I made dltfereDcp
to the prosecution what the standing
of c. E. Leonard was in the commu-
nifty, and no attempt ought be MADE
to prove something against Leonard
until he had been connected with MI.
Weinstock.
Judge Holl said it was not the IN
tention of the prosecution to show that
other people had been corrupt, ana
that only evidence going to connect
Mr.. Weinstock with Leonard and others
ought to be allowed. The prosecution
did not intend TO have anything to 90
with c. f. Leonard, as connected with
the plaintiff, until evidence had been
offered showing that there was such
a connection.
Judge Hughes inquired of Judge Hon
whether the article in the Bee" did not
saw that Weinstock was shield anu
protection to boodlers and blackmali-
ers and whether two charges were not
made-irst. that there We're boodlers
and blackmailers, and, second, that the
plaintiff did shield and protect them
Attorney Bruner, for the defense, sald
he did not consider it necessary for the
ATTORNEYS for the prosecution TO out
line a defense. Mr.. Weinstock, ne
said was not charged with any wrong
bv the article published, nor did it show
that he had had any improper knoWl-
edge of the matter, but 1t dld sho"
that he had been ill-advised when ne
appeared before the people as haVlhS
suffered from the article.
Attorney Mettson inquired whether
Leonard or Weinstock was prosecuting
the case, and Attorney Johnson re-
nlied that Weinstock and not Leonard
was the prosecuting witness. Nett
son continued that it was the lnteh-
tion of the defense to connect Welh-
stock with the matter, or place II III
such a light that the jury would con-
clude he was devoid of sense or rea-
soning. 1t would be shown that had
he used proper judgment he would not
he placed in the position he now occu-
pied-that of prosecuting witness.
When Attorney Mettson concluded,
Attorney Johnson arose and SAID the
plan outlined by the defense was nor
fair way to try the case.
Il will not be put in that position,
retorted Mettson. springing to ms Ieet-
II want to treat this court fairly, put
/ allow no man TO say or intimate inat
of the defendants l represent. VIII
not stand it from counsel on the other
side as long as l have drop OF blood
in nv body. He shall not. nor shall
any other man say any such thing.
You may assassinate, but you can
NOT intimidate." returned Attorney
Johnson sarcastically, quoting Attor-
ney Delmas, and then both attorneys
began talking at the same time, ana
kept it up for half minute. Mettson
said he could protect himself at all
times. and Johnson retorted that ne
was ready to do anything at any time
Then Judge Hughes interrupted in
q vigorous style and the belligerent at
torneys quieted down. He said he
would allow no such scenes in court,
and that if they were repeated he
would severely punish the parties con-
cerned. He should, he said, try the
case fairly on its merits, and in decid-
ing the point, said:
Il think. gentlemen, it is exercising
a fair discretion on the part of the
court to direct the defense that in pre-
senting the evidence in the case that
YOU first show that the plaintiff occu-
pied the position spoken of-that ne
occupied the position in the communi-
ty of protecting boodlers and black
mailers. In other words you NAV
show he was shielding and protecting
certain individuals and thereafter show
that those individuals were what you
charged them with. being"
The defense excused the witness Ross
for the time being. but notified him that
he might be called later on.
WEINSTOCK ON THE STAND.
Mr.. Weinstoek was the next witness
called. He said he had known c. +.
Leonard a long time-ever since he had
been a candidate for Trustee. He knew
Leonard in the latter part OF 1877. Wit
ness said he had also known John
A Sheehan seven or eight years, and
knew him about February 10. 1897.
About that time Sheehan had spoken
10 him regarding a proposed newspaper
TO be started in Sacramento, which Mr..
Won Arnold anticipated establishing.
There had. however. been no conversa-
tion about the matter, and the witness
did not respond to Sheehan's statement
Won Arnold and a man named Schuman
We're present.
The witness testified that from Feb
ruary 18TH he did rot see Sheehan
until after the 25th OF February. On
or about February 1st or I'd the witness
received a letter signed by Won Arnold.