The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-02-16
mentioned anything about a concert

Brown interviewed him called his at
tention to the pencil marks at the TOP
of the letter, and that the latter SAID
they had undoubtedly been written by
V. S. McClatchy; that it was a nasty
mess, and that he wished he was out
Of it. Brown, the witness said, stated
that the matter was incomprehenslbie
to him, unless the letter had been In
the red pocketbook which had been
found and left at the Bee office.
The witness told Brown he, too, had
thought of that, but that the letter was
dated on February LIST, and that the
pocketbook was alleged to. have been
found January 1st, which would
make the pocketbook theory impos-
sible. Brown had said that that was
true, and that it was all Incompetent
sible to him.
The witness, in reply to further ques-
tons, admitted that he had taken no
notes Of the conversation he had with
Brown.
THE Won ARNOLD TELEGRAM.
Attorney Nelson inquired whether
the telegram the witness had received
from Won Arnold had been sent from
San Jose, and the witness answer
ed it had not, but had been sent from
San Francisco Mr. Nelson then
turned to the evidence of the witness
given on Friday last, at which time
he had testified that the telegram had
been sent from San Francisco. The
witness admitted that he had been in
error. Mr.. Nelson wanted to know
whether or not he had testified that
because Brown had reported him as
having said it was San Francisco he
had said it was base fabrication.
The witness said that if he had told
Brown that the telegram had come
from San Jose, and Brown had re-
ported it San Francisco, that he had
made an error.
Attorney Nelson turned to the dep
osition made by Mr.. Weinstock. and
pointed out two or three statements
made therein, as differing from the
evidence he had given on the stand.
The witness said he had been in
error in the points cited in the deposit
ton, and that he, as we'll as the at
torney, was not infallible, and was liza
BILE to error. He said he had not looked
over the deposition as closely as he
should before signing it, and that the
points referred to by the attorney were
inaccuracies on the part of the de-
ponent.
When asked further about his test
mony to the effect that the telegram
was sent from San Francisco and not
from San Jose, the witness said the tel
egram was the best evidence, and that
he had introduced it voluntarily.
Then Attorney Mettson took up
Browns interview of February 2Sth,
in which the witness was reported as
saying that Sheehan and man named
Won Arnold had called upon him about
a week before.
The witness said that the statement
was substantially correct, except that
he said a week or two, and not a week.
There was also a third party present
named Schunan.
Continuing with the same interview,
Attorney Nelson read that portion in
which Won Arnold is alleged to have
told the witness that he proposed to
purchase the Clunie property for the
purpose Of starting a concert hall. The
witness said the statement, in so far as
it related to a concert hall was entire
time of the visit Sheehan, after intro
ducing Won Aronld, had said the lat
ter was a capitalist, and anticipated
starting a newspaper in Sacramento.
Then Won Arnold had cut in and said
that he was thinking OF buying the
Clunie property, but that Clunie was
a hard man to deal with, and he Won
dered whether other and cheaper prop
erty could not be bought. The wit
ness had told him that there would be
no difficulty in that, as there was prop
erty all along K street that could be
had at very reasonable figures.
The witness testified, however, that
Won Arnold had said nothing about the
use to which the property it was pro-
posed to purchase would be put, but
spoke of it only as a real estate invest
ment. Mr.. Weinstock further said that
at the time Sheehan, Schuman and Won
Aronld called on him he did not know
the latter had a brother. Prior to the
interview with Mr.. Brown however,
the witness had had a talk with Trus-
tee Leonard, in which the latter had
attempted to get him to interest him
self in the establishment of a news
paper, and that he had positively de-
clined to do SO. Leonard had spoken
of Won Arnold having a brother in
Chicago.
Mr.. Weinstock explained that when
interviewed by Mr. Brown on Febru-
airy 18th, he did know that Won Arm
old had a brother, but did not know
it at the time Sheehan, Won Arnold and
Schumann called on him. The expla-
nation was made after the noon re-.
cess, the witness stating that at the
time the question was put he under
stood it related to the time when Shee-
han, schumann and Won Arnold had
visited him in the basement of his
store.
Attorney Metson read that portion
Of the transcript of the evidence taken
at the morning session. relating to the
matter, but the witness said he was
under the impression that the ques-
ton applied to the time of the visit
and not of the interview. He said,
however, that Of his own knowledge,
he never knew that Won Arnold had a
brother Had a question been asked
whether he knew at the time of the in
terview that Won Arnold claimd to
have a brother, he should have replied
that he did.
The witness explained. in answer to a
question, that at the noon recess he
had asked his attorney whether he
would be allowed to explain the matter
Of dates. and had been informed that
he would, but that nobody had ap-
preached him and suggested that he
make such a statement
Attorney Nelson followed up the
line of questions suggested, but sue
eeeded in getting only reiterations of
the explanation
THE NEWSPAPER SCHEME.