The record-union., 1898-02-17
the writing at the head Of the letter
was not his.

A QUESTION OF NOTES.
Witness answered that he did not.
He had a conversation with Mr. WeiE,-
stock on March 23d at Seventeenth and
j streets, and that he did not in re-
Spouse to the latters asking him why
he had CARRIED his statements. state
that ne had taken no notes, but had
written up his copy and handed it in.
and was not responsible for what was
done with it afterward He made
notes, not at the time of the interview,
but short time afterward, after he
reached the Bee" office. He dictated
them, and they were published in the
paper. They were dictated and writ
ten on the typewriter, and he corrected
and edited them. They were printed in
the Bee" as corrected by him on
March 4th
Mr.. Johnson said that the witness ac-
knowledged he had not the original
notes, and asked witness if he did not
make affidavits to his report of the in
terviews. Witness answered that he
did. Mr.. Johnson demanded in that
case that the affidavit be produced by
witness
Mr. Brown said he did not have it.
After he had made it. he received either
the affidavit or carbon copy of it. He
did not know what had become of it. 1t
was made in affidavit form, but he did
not remember that he ever signed it.
To the best of his knowledge and be-
lief, he never signed it. He did not
know that the Bee" stated that it had
required its reporters to make atfida-
Wit to their statements in this matter.
He had never told anyone so.
Mr.. Johnson then asked the court to
order the defendants to produce the
affidavit and Mr.. Bruner said they had
no affidavit, and had only the short
hand notes of the stenographer, taken at
witness dictation.
Mr.. Johnson then submitted that the
court ought not to allow witness to
refresh his memory from anything but
his original notes or his s1idavit, and
it was shown that he had neither.
The court said that he did not think
that the disappearance of the original
notes had been satisfactorily accounted
for. None of the copies of his notes
that We're printed can be used to re-
fresh his memory, in his opinion. 1t
seemed as if the original notes made
by the stenographer at his dictation
would be entitled to refresh his mem
Dry from, and that the papers would
not do
Mr.. Nelson said that if the witness
had made ten memoranda on that day
he would be entitled to use anyone of
them to refresh his memory, irrespec-
tive of any previous ones. What the
paper had printed was compared by
l.; I'LL
was fresh in his memory.
The court held to his ruling. and Mr.
Bruner withdrew the witness Temporal
rily, in order to allow him to try and
find the original notes.
COULD NOT BE FOUND.
In the Afternoon Mr.. Brown resumed
his testimony.
He said that since the adjournment
of the court he had made search for his
original notes and the Carbon copy of
his affidavit, but had not found either
A question as to the correctness of
the report as published in the Bee"
was objected to by counsel for plain
tiff on the ground that it had not been
shown that either or both of the docu-
ments were not in existence, and posi-
bly, in the custody Of the defendants,
who would naturally have power
over it,
The objection was sustained. He
had met Miss Davis, the stenographer
and she told him she thought they were
in her desk, but on search there he
could not find them.
Mr.. Bruner said that the documents
We're not in possession Of the defend
ants or counsel for defense.
Mr.. Holl said that was not the way to
make proof, as the defendants were in
court.
The court ruled that if plaintiffs in
sisted defendants must make proof that
they had no such documents in their
possession
V. S. McClatchy was called to the
stand and testified that he had no doc
uments relating to the interview of Feb
ruary 2Sth. He had in his possession at
one time carbon copies of the report
made by Mr.. Brown on that day. but
he did not know what had become of
them. The reports were all put into aft
davit. He knew that Mr.. Weinstock, in
his article in the Record Union on
March Dist claimed that his
interviews We're garbled. but
did not think that he made any
Investigations as to whether or not the
statement was true. He had looked up
some of these papers within the past
month, but did not know where they
We're. The reporters. in accordance
with instructions. made their reports in
affidavit form, but they We're not signed
or sworn to. They We're instrI cted to
draw them up in such way that they
could be signed. and the card published
by witness in the Record Union was
technically a mistake, as they We're not
signed.
ANOTHER BREEZE.
"A technical mistake" said Mr.. John
son. Yes. we all make mistakes, ex-
cept my friend, Mr. Nelson"
Il object TO any allusion to me by Mr..
Johnson, jocular or otherwise" said Mr..
Metson. Il will not submit to it and
now tell the court So
You Will have to submit to what
choose to say" said Mr. Johnson
Il repeat that l win not submit to it,
said Mr.. Nelson. and l tell the court
so"
Gentlemen" said the court. there is
no necessity Of these Incidents You are
aware that there is much feeling in this
matter and you should both avoid al
lusions of this sort. They are I'M
pleasant to the court and to all parties
and / desire you to avoid them here
after.
Resuming. witness said that he re-
Gently looked over the reports Of the in
terviews and showed them to Mr. Brown
the reporter, and his recollection was