The record-union., 1898-02-17
COURT WARNS ATTORNEYS.
MUST NOT EURL EPITHETS AT
ONE ANOTHER.
Reporter Browns Testimony in
the Weinstock-McCla
Suit Yesterday.

the We1uStOck-McClat
Suit Yesterday.
When Judge Hughes court opened yes
terday Mr. Bruner said there had been
considerable discussion about an mel
dent that occurred the afternoon just
before adjournment that he wlsheo 10
Set right. He read from the RECORD
Union in regard to the words between
him and Mr.. Johnson and said that the
paper had made mistake, as ne hao
no opportunity to reply TO Mr. Johh-
son as the court took an adjournment
Immediately afterwards. lie ola not
wish to lie under the imputatlon or false-
hood and did not propose to do so. he
should leave the matter Tor the court
to take such action on as seemed lit to IT,.
Mr. johnson said that he proposed to
protect his client from such assault by
the other side His client had been at
tackled time and again by them and he
did not propose to submit to it. He
was not conscious of having done any
thing wrong, but if the court thought
otherwise he was ready to take what
ever its judgment was. If counsel states
that his client made false statements, he
proposed to resent it and if any steps
are taken by counsel under the circum-
stances, he stood ready to accept the
consequences of his acts. These matters
are unpleasant to counsel of both sides,
who had tried to conduct the case in a
friendly manner, but when one of them
characterizes his clients statement as
absolutely false, he commits an offense
and cannot complain if it isresented.
WOULD CAUTION COUNSEL.
The court said that an unusual
amount of this sort of thing had been
done during the trial. 1t is reprehensible
and does no good and in the opinion of
the court does not help the case of the
one making it. 1t makes things I'M
pleasant and he hoped that counsel
would not compel the court to take ac-
ton in the matter. 1t was his duty to
act, but he did not wish to be forced to
take other measures. He would take
no action at this time, but would eau
ton counsel to avoid such proceedings
and hoped that they would. 1t could not
be done, however, if counsel characterize
statements as false, etc. Counsel on
both sides had been at fault Mr..
BrUner was in error when he charac-
terized the statements of the witness
as false when he should instead have
taken steps to prove them false, if pos
sible.
Mr.. Bruner stated that he had said he
would prove it by his witnesses.
The court said that even then he was
wrong and Mr.. Johnson was wrong in
answering him.
MIR. Bruner said he did not think he
was in error and did not think he began
il. During the trial Witness Brown and
his clients had been called fabricators
and libelers. He could not rest under
the imputation of falsehood himself.
Mr.. Holl thought both the gentlemen
We're mistaken as to the report in the
Record Union" He would read it. as
he did not agree with them. He read
the article which, he said, stated that
If any witness said Mr.. Weinstock's tes-
timony was false, he himself would be
guilty of falsehood. Neither one of the
gentlemen was injured and there was no
occasion for all this feeling at this point
Mr.. Nelson said he did not think Mr.
Johnson meant to impute falsehood to
Mr.. Bruner He knew that counsel We're
liable at all times to say things under
excitement that they did not mean. He
had done it himself at times.
AIR. Bruner thought the matter was
clearly before the court. He thought
If the remark was meant it was the re-
mark of pettifogger.
Mr. Johnson said that if these people
think they can bluff him, even with a
newspaper at their back, they are mis-
taken. They would get their epithets
back every time. Inside or outside of
the IA s.. oil "a
said. If they said his client lies they
would get it back in kind. That was his
position and they could make the most
OF il.
a FINAL WARMING
The court said he had given counsel
warning and he thought they would be
wise to heed it. If necessary, he would
infict punishment to the full extent of
the law, although it would be unpleasant
to do so. Both We're wrong, but Mr.
Bruner was especially so. 1t was the
last time he would warn them. The next
time one of the counsel applied an cpl
tibet the court would send him to Jail for
FIVE days and adjourn the case until the
time elapsed
BROWN RESUMES.
Recurring to the objection to Mr.
Weinstock's evidence. Mr. Johnson
read from ii TO show that on the direct
examination the matter was brought
out. and that he had a right to cross
examine on that point.
Mr.. Nelson said the statement in
question was a voluntary one on Mr.
Weinstock's part, and not responsive
10 the request. He should not there
fore be cross-examined on it.
Mr. Johnson said the defense had al
lowed it to go into the record, and
were bound by it.
The court held that the answer was
not responsive to the question asked,
and that he having been allowed to be
ss-examined on it. the other side
had the right to rebut it If possible
Mr.. Bruner asked Witness Brown.
who resumed the stand, about his IN
terview with Mr. Weinstock on March
4th II he told the latter that he had
seen Won Arnold's writing, and that