The record-union., 1898-02-25

possibly three times. He could not re-
member just the date of the meeting
of the directors, and said it might have
been held early in March, Those pres
ent at the time Mr. Weinstock read the
letter We're Mr.. Skeels, Mr.. Bonnheim
and himself. The court would not
allow the witness to state the number
of shares of stock he owned in Vein
stock, Lubin & Co.
ANOTHER HOT TIME.
The witness said he remembered the
publication of the Bees combine arti-
Gle. and Mr. Johnson said:
We'll, now, this was prior" and
then a simultaneous objection came
from Attorneys Metson and Bruner that
he was trying to lead the witness. Mr..
Metson proceeded to argue the point,
| and Mr.. Johnson cut in with:
Nonsense. nonsense!" and added a
few words TO which Mr. Metson took
| exception.
I'm not used to practicing law as
does Mr.. Johnson" said Mr. Metson,
| raising his voice
If you We're you'd be a better law
yer" retorted Johnson
I'D be more decent one" cut in
! Metson hotly, "and / want to say that
| will not stand such treatment from
an attorney.
Yes; you'll be shedding every drop
of blood again pretty soon," said john
| SON, and then both attorneys began
| talking at the same time. and the
| Judge had some difficulty in getting
| hearing.
When he did he informed Mr.. John
| son that he had done wrong by ad-
| dressing Mr.. Metson instead of the
court, and that he had no right to inter
rupt an attorney who was making a
! statement.
Johnson said he considered it to be
his duty to resent an insulting remark
whenever and wherever it was made,
and that if he was wrong he had mis-
construed his rights as an attorney.
The Judge reprimanded him for his
hasty action, sustained the objection,
and declared a recess until 80 p. m.
The witness. in answer to a further
to the directors before the publication
in the Bee
SHEEHAN TESTIFIES.
John A. Sheehan was the next wit
| ness in rebuttal and testified that he
had prior to December 6, 1892 been
employed on the Bee" for six or seven
years.
The witness said he knew James M.
Morrison, and that he had not in 1894
had a conversation with him respecting
any money being transferred to him,
and had not offered to give him the
goodwill of the Sunday News for
500 or any other sum of money. He
denied each and every statement made
by Morrison when the latter was on
the stand but said that in the early
part of 1893 he had been introduced to
Morrison in Weismann's saloon by
| June 3. Harris. He had at that time
| had no conversation with him respect
! ing finances, and had not gone out of
the saloon with Morrison, nor walked
| with him on the street
Witness said. in answer to a ques-
! ton, that he had introduced Carl J. Won
| Arnold to Mr.. Weinstock.
On cross-examination the witness
| said that he had never talked with
| Morrison before nor since the time he
| had been introduced to him by Harris.
| Witness said he and Harris had been
! talking about Morrison there having
been some difficulty between the Board
| of Supervisors and the Sunday News -
| and when he entered Harris had intro
| duced them. The witness felt certain
| that he had never before nor since
talked with Morrison.
| The witness said ne had called upon
| Mr.. Weinstock and introduced Won Ar
mold about the middle of February, but
could not fix the exact date of the
visit. A man who called himself Schu-
man had been present at the time of
| th- visit to Mr.. Weinstock Witness
saw Mr.. Weinstock about a week after
the Bee" had published its alleged ex-
| position of the alleged combine Wit
ness about two weeks after the Bee
! began its publications, called on Mr..
| WeinStock TO apologize to him for hav-
! ing been the cause of his name being
used in the matter. He had also told
| Mr.. Weinstock that he (Sheehan ex-
| pected to be indicted for libel
| Witness said the visit TO Weinstock
was not made on February 10Th.
SAMUEL NJ MARKS.
| Samuel NJ. Marks, a real estate deal
| er of San Francisco. said he was in
Sacramento on the 1st and ID of Feb
ruary, 1897. and on the 1st Mr.. Vein
stock had showed him a letter signed
| by one Won Arnold. To the best of
witness recollection the letter had
been opened in his presence, and he
! had read it, The letter attracted his
attention on account of its peculiar
contents. and especially by some PEN
| Gil markings on one corner Witness
| said he was Mr.. Weinstocks brother
| in-faw. At the time he read the let
ter nobody but he and Mr.. Wenstock
We're present. They had arrived at a
conclusion respecting the writer of the
letter, but. according to the ruling of
the court at the morning session he
was not allowed to tell what that con-
clusion had been
MIR. WEINSTOCK AGAIN.
| II. Weinstock. the prosecuting wit
ness, was next called, and testified that
prior TO March 1lth. Won Arnold was
never. to his knowledge, in his office.
His office, he said. is on the top floor
front of his place of business at Fourth b
and K streets.
| In answer to a question the witness
said neither of the McClathchys had
ever invited him to cooperate with
| lhein III lhelf exposures, ana 1hat
neither Mr.. Brown. nor anybody else
/ had ever asked him to do so. He had
never refused to give any information
! except the letter he had received from
! Won Arnold.
On oss-examination the witness re-
| iterated that he had concealed nothing
I from the Bee" except the Won Ar
mold letter. and in refusing to give the
name of the man pnrportng TO be
connected with the proposed newspa-