The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-02-19

that he could be of benefit to him, and
would give him the goodwill Of the
paper for $780, Witness felt quite posi-
tive that the conversation had been
held during the month Of November,
1894.
Witness said he was as friendly to the
proprietors of the Bee as to the man.
ayers of the Record Union," but not
more SO. He was not aware that the
Bee" had taken up his fight with the
News. He admitted that he did not
feel friendly to Sheehan, and said he
had good cause for not being So
In relation to Morrison's appearance
before the Grand Jury, he said that he
mad not been indicted by that body,
and had not been subpenaed to appear
and give evidence in relation to bills
approved by the Board of Supervisors.
On redirect examination the witness
said that at the conversation referred
to he had told Sheehan that he would
meet him at Wissemann's saloon the
following evening, to talk finances, if
he so desired, but that Sheehan had
said he could swear as hard as the
witness, and what talking he did would
be outside on the street Witness had
District Attorney for complaints charg-
ing Sheehan with libel. District Attor-
ney Ryan had told him that the Police
Court was the proper place to secure
a complaint, and City Attorney Brown
had informed him that he would ac-
cept no associate counsel in the exam
nation of the case, and witness wanted
his own attorney taken in. Witness
"a ia he haH L;
versation with Sheehan to both Ryan
and Brown, but that he did not press
the matter because he did not believe
he had sufficient evidence to convict
on blackmail charge. though he
thought he had on a charge of libel.
In the afternoon H. ]. Goethe was
called and asked regarding the date Of
the Germania Building and Loan Asso-
cations election in order to fix the
date regarding Supervisor Morrison's
testimony
{. Z. Leonard was recalled and ques-
toned by Mr.. Metson as to whether he
saw Won Arnold in February, 1891 OBJ
lection was made on the ground of ir-
relevancy. The court said he could
not see that it was relevant and Mr..
Nelson said that it was to lead up to
testimony making a connecting chain
IN the case. The objection was over
ruled on counsels statement and wit
ness said he had called on Won Arnold
at the Western Hotel. He received a
letter from him.
HE DESTROYED THE LETTER.
Objections We're made by Mr.. John
son, and the court held a long confer
ence with the two attorneys as to adj
hitting the evidence, after which the
testimony proceeded. Witness testi-
fled that he destroyed the letter with
several others which he considered I'M
important He could me- say whether
a letter handed to him by Mr.. Nelson
was a copy of it. He recognized some
parts of it, but did not recognize it all.
He did not think he received more than
the one letter. He had a conversation
with Charles Merry, Dee reporter,
in his store, but did not tell him that
the letter related to a private enter
prise in which he and Won Arnold We're
engaged. He had a conversation with
reporter Brown and might have said
that he expected to be concerned in a
newspaper with Won Arnold and that
they would take the International Ho-
tel for printing the newspaper. He did
not say he would put in any money, for
he had none to put in.
E. H. Bolze testified that he had
mailed copies Of the Record Union
containing Mr.. Weinstock's commune
cation. He did not know whether they
were marked or not
Mr.. WeinStock was recalled and iden-
titled the bill for the extra copies and
said that he might have ordered them
marked, but had no recollection Of it.
question as to how many were dis
tributed in the city was objected to and
the objection sustained.
WHY IT WAS WRITTEN.
V. s. McClatchy testified that he re-
membered the publication of April
18th constituting the bZsis of this suit.
1t was called forth by the article in the
Examiner and that when that paper
arrived in Sacramento it was called to
their attention. He and his brother
conferred on the subject and decided
that in justice to themselves 1t should
be answered They answered it in
their paper OF that afternoon. He sub
sequently saw Mr.. Moran. the Exam
ner' reporter. having arranged for an
interview with him. He asked Mr..
Moran about the item and the latter
stated that witness had entirely mis-
apprehended the article as he did not
intend TO convey the idea that Mr..
Weinstock had made the statements in
the article. as he had not done so. Wit
ness went over the article, to show Mr..
Moran that the logical inference of the
Bee" was that Mr.. Weinstock had
made the statements. Mr.. Moran adj
mitted that ii looked So but that he
thought something Introductory to the
article had been omitted before 1t was
printed. Mr. Moran stated that Mr..
Weinstock had told him at Chief Lees
office some incidents of Won Arnold'S
career here, among them the way in
which he had become acquainted with
Won Arnold There was nothing said
about a retraction, that witness could
recollect, but Mr.. Moran said that they
had made mistake.
Witness looked upon the article OF MIR.
Weinstock as one of a series of incidents
that had happened since the Bee had
started publishing its articles. 1t had
in it's Investigations found that the
names OF several prominent citizens
We're connected with them in measure,
not in a criminal manner, and ii had
expected that those citizens would give
it their assistance in unraveling 1T.
They had expected Mr. Weinstock
would do So but he refused. They
heard that Mr.. Weinstock had told
some of their friends that the object
of the Bee" was not so much the ex-
posing Of corruption as 1t was making
an attack on him. These statements,
he thought. We're injuring the paper
NJ. Mot for had told him that he