The record-union., 1898-02-10


counsel in his citation of authorities,
had said that previous articles could
not be offered as Justification unless
| they We're connected with the matter
complained of This article is con-
nected with the previous article On
the day following the filing of his suit,
the article published in the Record
Union," presumably by Mr. Weinstock,
appeared. 1t was not to vindicate him
self, but to influence. the jury that
might be called on to try the case. He
had mailed copies of the paper out, day
by day, up to the time the Bee" article
appeared. Why did he go to San Fran
cisco and interview Chief Lees and
Mr.. Moran If not in continuation of his
plan. 1t is for the jury to determine
What he did these things for. This
| publication was the last straw that
broke the camel's back
Counsel quoted from Newell on
Slander and Libel" that the law makes
allowance for human frailty, and that
| it was competent for person publish
ing a libel to show provocation. He
claimed that the Examiner article
was a libel on the defendants and not or
plaintiff, and that the article in de-
| PENDANTS paper was written Immediate
| ~ after they read it.
He also read from Townsend -
! "Odger," and other authorities on the
point of privileged communications in
self-defense, and claimed that plaintiff.
| by his visit to San Francisco had,
brought the article on himself.
THE DEFENSE A SHAM.
Mr.. Johnson said that the only point
to which ne wished to call the atten-
ton of the court was the plea of de-
fense. He denounced the defense as a
sham and a fraud. 1t enunciates the
monstrous doctrine that a mans fair
name can be attacked and dragged in
| the dust week after week and if he
| says a thing in defense that it shall
| give the paper the right to lie about ana
libel him without redress There is no
law, no rule of justice or morality that
condemns a man to suffer such things.
| If it were so, no man can obtain re-
! dress, and the door is shut on him.
Plaintiff did publish an article in an
| swer to the persistent attacks of de-
| PENDANTS on him. If it was libel, they
had their immediate redress in the
courts, and plaintiff would gladly have
welcomed them there, and would have
presented his proofs. But they did not
take their chance to get redress. The
article they published twenty-four days
after was not in answer to Weinstock' S
communication, but in answer to the
article in the Examiner" 1t is shown
that this is so by the fact that ali the
comments are in answer to the "Ex-
aminer' article, and in no way is refer
| aHp n he IL
Moreover, they say that it appears that
''Weinstoc6 is ill-advised now in
acting as a shield, etc, showing that
they do not refer to Weinstock's article
in the Record Union" The comments
/ of the Bee" are entirely on the pre-
sumed conversation between Weinstoc1.
| Chief Lees and Moran What of it if
! Weinstock Gid interview Lees or try to
convince him that the man was a
sceundrel on whose statements de-
PENDANTS had DETAINED his fair fame.
| If Mr.. Wenstock's statements could
/ discredit Won Arnold's credibility with
Chlef Lees, his credibility must have
| been very easily destroyed Were the
afidavits of Won trnolds villainy OBJ
tanned in Chicago and other places as
| excuse for libel, even if they did dis
credit defendants principal witness
What if plaintiff did talk to others of
his case, the time has not yet come
when newspaper can seal a citizens
mouth when it has attacked. All this
| matter in justification and mitigation
should be shut out, and would shorten
the trial by weeks.
| Mr.. Bruner said that in the "Exami-
ner article the plaintiff was not IL
beled, but the Bee" was. He claimed
that Weinstock's refusal TO give up the
| dfcoy letters was stated in his article
TO be because he considered the names
of parties known to him were used in
it in a scandalous manner and he did
not wish to do so. Was that not pro-
| tecting the parties who were charged
| with boodling?
| Mr.. johnson said that the defense of
the charge that Mr.. Weinstock had been
! ill-advised in making himself q shield
for boodlers and blackmailers was
sought to be made because he would not
| give up to McClatchy the decoy letters
written by McClatchy, purporting TO
| implicate citizens, when sent for by Nc
CATCHY and asked how he could be ex-
| pected to do so.
Mr. Bruner denied that he proposed
10 make that ms defense.
The court said that so many ques-
| tions had arisen during the argument
that it made it difficult for him to de-
eide them all. The first proposition TO
| be passed on is whether the answer
makes the justification sufficient to
cover the complaint The defendant
be thought, might allege that the
! charges were true and offer mitigating
circumstances. There were several
things he would not pass upon at pres
ent but would pass upon them as they
| arose in the course Of the trial He
thought the answer was drawn in ac-
| cordance with the reformed rules of
pleading as practiced in this State, and
| that sufficient had been put in of the
| things alleged in the answer The
plaintiff. by charging the entire arti-
Gle, has put on the defendants the proof
/ of the truth Of the article if libelous
On the face of it, it puts on the defend
ant the proof of it all. Should they
be denied the right to prove every state
ment. If possible?
1t seemed to him as if they should
have that right If the evidence is adj
Missile for any reason, it is admissi-
| BILE for all, and should be considered
for what it is worth by the jury. The
question of whether the article In the
| Record Union" is admissible is a close
one but he was of the opinion that ii
/ was not under the rule quoted by de-
/ fendant and that no such article was
admissible in mitigation Of damages.
/ The time of its publication was too re-
mote in relation to the article COM
planned of He would rule on the
other points as they came up.