The record-union., 1898-02-24

The door had been thrown wide open
for them to prove their charges, but
they had not done it. and could not do
it by the statement of witness
The court ordered the question and
answer stricken out, and directed wit
ness to confine himself to facts.
Witness resumed, that the giving up
of the letter by Mr.. Weinstock would
have corroborated certain matters con-
corning one of the issues. Mr. Vein
stock denied things that witness knew
We're true, as he had facts and docu-
ments to prove them.
Statements of the detectives, yes
said Mr.. Weinstock. IF you have any
facts and documents. produce them"
Witness wished to refresh his MEM
ory from the Bee so that he could
point out the specific facts he spoke of,
but Mr.. johnson objected and called for
the facts and documents he claimed to
have
An argument ensued. and the court
said that the line of examination pur-
sued would lead to a recounting again
of defendants testimony and consume
| two or three weeks more time.
In answer to questions. witness said
| that Stillwell was recommended to him
| by Hal benson, Judge Denson's son,
| They did not make any investigation
of Won Arnold's character until after
| the Delmas matter, and after Won Ar
! mold had testified before the Grand
Jury They did not make any inves-
| tigation before that time. In answer
to question as TO how Mr. Weinstock
| refused TO give them aid in their in
vestigation. he said that Mr.. Wenstock
/ would not give information and
| made statements that they knew
at the time We're untrue He refused
| to give the facts in his possession that
would have corroborated the reports of
Won Arnold. He had also made state
ment that the charges were not
so much an expose as an attack on
him for matters with which he had no
| connection.
A QUESTION OF VERACITY.
| Being told to give facts within his
own knowledge independent of reports
or Investigations of others. witness said
| that Mr.. Weinstock had denied any
knowledge of the matters when his
| own statement showed differently
Mr. Johnson asked if that state
ment was rot corrected Immediately
and if he did not state that he had
| misunderstood the question. Witness
| said that was true, but that in the lat
ter part of the second interview Mr..
Weinstock had stated that he had no
| previous communication with Won Ar
! mold, and that he had no other knowl-
! edge of his scheme than he had stated
| in the interview. Witness knew that
Mr.. Weinstock had in his possession the
letter written by Won Arnold, describ-
| ing the scheme. Witness had in his
possession articles of incorporation in
| which Mr.. WeiPS name was inserted in
| place of Weinstock's. He did not mean
| that WeinStock's name had been
| erased, as it had never been written
in the articles, but that Weinstock had
| been originally spoken of in the scheme.
Soon after the articles of Incorporation
came into witness possession. shortly
after they We're drawn up, and previous
| to February 18th, but he did not think
| that the absence of Weinstocks name
| showed he had no connection with it.
and it did not appear either in the
| articles of agreement that accompan-
led it, but his name had been men
| toned as liable to take stock at some
| future time
When he interviewed Mr. Moran after
| the article of April 14th, the latter told
him that he had put words into Vein
stocks mouth that he never uttered.
He did not believe Moran's statement
at that time, and he did not remember
that Moran told him he had better re-
tract he had never retracted and Mo-
ran told him that Weinstock had stated
to him some of the points in Won Ar
nold's career here which had come un-
der his observation. He did not specify
any particular points, except the way in
which Weinstock had left Won Arnold
IN the basement of his store
COULD NOT REMEMBER.
| He could not remember whether or
not he declined in his deposition to an
swer question whether any one else
was interested in making the investi-
cation, or whether he declined to an
swer a question as to whether any one
else contributed to the expense of the
| investigation. He declined to answer a
number Of questions by advice of coun-
sell b. L. Steinman did not contribute
| to the expenses of the Investigation.
ana knew nothing of it at the time Re
freshinS his memory by reading from
the deposition, he said he did decline to
answer the questions. by advice of Mr..
Bruner. He had no other reason for de-
Ginning to answer. Up to February /.
1891, ne had no reports from Won Ar
| mold connecting Mr. Weinstock with
| the charges made in the articles in re-
lation to the newspaper. He read the
articles iE the Examiner of ApriI
| l4th. Did not remember whether he
read it all, but presumed that he did.
either at that time or later.
Mr.. Johnson offered the entire article
/ in the Examiner" in evidence. ana
Messrs. Bruner and Metson simulra-
/ neously objected on the ground Of jr-
/ relevancy, etc, and also that the de-
tense had not introduced the article ar
any portion of it. The court ruled that
the article could not be introduced. but
that witness could be questioned on tho
article, to find out his knowledge of II.
Mr.. Metson argued that, if the ar
tcie. which was in itself the best evi-
dence. could not be introduced. witness
could not be questioned on special parts
/ OF it which had not been introduced
Judge Holl argued that the defense
mad introduced part of the article In
| their answer the plaintiff had a right
! 10 introduce the whole of it,
The court decided that as part of the
/ article had been introduced witness
/ could he examined on the whole of j.
! Witness stated that he could not re.t
| whether at that time he had read the
whole article, headed Won Arnold. The
! Bigamist," or his attention was after
! wards celled to it by some one else.