The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-02-18

that II the paper was to be used for an
immoral purpose it would be a poor
business venture. All the questions
witness asked were answered freely
and frankly except that he refused 10
give up the letter.
THE EXAMINERS CIRCULATION.
AT the afternoon session, the defense
put on the stand A j. FOWL. who on
April IA, 1897, was agent in this city
for the Examiner.
Attorney Bruner asked the witness
what, if he knew, was the circulation
of the Examiner in Sacramento on
the date mentioned.
Attorney Johnson objected to the
question, contending that it was imma-
terial, and was neither in mitigation nor
justification.
Attorney Bruner contended the qEes-
ton was material, at least in mitiga-
ton, and that its connection had been
already brought out, inasmuch as Chief
of Police Lees of San Francisco testi-
fled that he had said to Mr.. Weinstock,
You had narrow escape from the
false Baron Won Arnold"
Attorney Nelson argued in the same
line. and contended thai it was a case
in which the jury should find how the
Examiner" had got its information.
Judge Holl said the Examiner" had
not been sued for libel, and that its
circulation in this city could have no
bearing on the case.
Attorney Nelson interjected the
statement that the question was asked
for the purpose of showing that the
prosecuting witness had been trying the
case out of court.
Judge Holl said that according to
Chief of Police Lees, his conversation
with Mr.. Weinstock had related chiefly
to the woman. Mrs. Delmas, and that
only the character of Won Arnold was
up for discussion.
Judge Hughes held that there had
not beer sufficient showing that the ev-
idence was material.
Attorney Nelson offered further ar
gument and was replied to by Judge
Holl Attorney Nelson cited authori-
said the inference of attempting to try
the case out of court was to be drawn
from the fact of the statement publish
ed in the Examiner" and that the
article in the Examiner was one of
McClatchys at the time of their publ
cation. as that paper had a circulation
in Sacramento.
Attorney Bruner said it was a fair
inference for the jury to draw as to
how far Mr.. Weinstock's statement re-
garding the matter was true. He
claimed that all the facts showing that
Mr.. Weinstock might have talked about
the matter with Reporter Moran, and
with Chief Lees should be admitted He
questioned how Lees and Moran knew
the Sacramento County Grand Jury
had done nothing. unless the informa-
ton had been furnished by Mr. Vein
stock
Judge Holl called attention to Re-
porter Moran's evidence that Mr. Vein
stock had not intended to have his
statements published, and had only in
tended to gather facts concerning the
character of Won Arnold He held that
no inference could be drawn from the
fact that Mr.. Weinstock had gone TO
Chief Lees to ascertain the character
Of the false Baron. Mr.. Weinstock
Judge Holl contended. had a perfect
right to make inquiries about the char
acter of any man in whom he was
interested, and that if Mr. Weinstocl
had told Chief Lees that he had
brought suit against the Bee" that
statement did not constitute an at
tempt to try his case out of court He
said the Bee" itself had published the
statement that suit had been COM
menced.
The court sustained the objection on
the ground that Mr.. Weinstock had had
nothing 10 do with the publication
which appeared in the Examiner" and
the witness was excused.
REPORTER BROWN CONCLUDES.
Then c. r. Brown, the Bee" report
er. was again put on the stand, and
Attorney Johnson said he had no fur
Their questions TO put on cross examina-
ton.
Attorney Bruner then took the wit
ness and asked whether at his third in
terview with Mr. Weinstock. had on
March 3, 1897. any conversation other
than that relating to the questions on
the written slip had occurred.
An objection by Attorney Johnson
was sustained by the court.
Attorney Bruner next offered Mr.
Browns reporters notes in evidence,
1.
which held that the witness could use
his notes for the purpose of refreshing
his memory, but that they were not
proper and admissible evidence
After the first Weinstock interview.
the witness testified he had told M.
McCIatchy that he was not Of the same
opinion he had been, and that he was
beginning to think Mr.. Weinstock's
connection with the case seemed a little
strange. He said he had not mixed up
his interviews with Mr.. Weinstock with
those he had had with other persons,
as that gentleman had been the first cna
he had interviewed on the matter.
On re-eross- examination the witness
said that on March 2,id he had told
Weinstcck that he had said to Nc
CATCHY that ne believed he (Weinstock)
was not connected with the proposed
newspaper. but that he did not tell
him that on March 1st he had expressed
contrary opinion, though he testified
he had so done.
When asked why he had not told Mr.
Weinstock that he had expressed q
contrary opinion as to his position in
the matter he said it was because he
did not wish to do so. Witness further
stated in explanation that he had told
Weinstock on March Odd that az the
time of the first interview he had told
Mr.. McClatchy that he did not believe
Weinstock was connected with the
business. but that no reference had been
made concerning a change of his opin-
ion.
When asked by Attorney Johnson
whether ne had ever said he was sorry
Mr.. Wenstock's name had been mixed
up in the matter, the witness said he had
ever felt sorry to think Weinstock had