The record-union., 1898-02-12
MUCH LEGAL SKIRMISHIAG.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. CASE
PROGRESSING.
Plaintiff on the Stand and Denies
Much of the Statements At
tributed to Him.

The trial of the Weinstock- -McClatchy
case was resumed yesterday morning,
Mr.. WeinStock continuing his testi-
mony
He said that when he saw Won Arm
old on February 7th the latter did not
state that he was the author Of the let
ter of the 1st or anything in relation
to the telegram of the 9th. He did
not know from absolute knowledge
when the copies of the "Record-Union'
We're sent out or whether they We're
marked or not He might have sent
a few copies himself to personal friends.
He did not remember whether or not
he had ordered the copies marked.
Mr.. Mettson proceeded to read from
Mr.. Weinstock's deposition in regard
to the number of copies sent out and
the question of damages, when MI
Johnson objected to the question of
damages being brought in at this time
and to the reading of the deposition, as
it had nothing TO do with the case The
court decided that the deposition could
be read SO far as it related to the num-
ber of copies only.
Mr.. Weinstock said he might have
4i<iN -sCOO ioHISS SEM tU<, Dub iiC Siic
not think there were G,000. Mr.. Shee-
han said in the conversation that Won
Arnold was going to establish news
paper here and witness thought he
said he was to be the manager of it,
He deposed that when Reporter Brown
stated to him that he had reason to
believe that the newspaper was only
to be a side issue, TO protect gambling
l..
how a paper could do so, as the other
papers would soon expose the weakness
of their rival. He also told Brown, IN
substance, that a few days before a
man, not Mr.. Sheehan, had spoken to
him about the paper, but he did not
feel at liberty to use his name. He
did refuse also TO give up the letter
from Won Arnold as it was private
letter and :sed the names of several
other persons and he did not think ii
would be just to do so.
Mr.. Mettson offered the copies of the
Bee" containing the various articles.
Mr.. Johnson objected on the ground
that they We're neither justification nor
mitigation and We're self-serving de-
clarations Of defendants, TO benefit their
case
Mr. Mettson said that the articles
shaved the facts to be that Mr.. Leon
ard was a boodler and Mr.. Sheehan a
blackmailer. Mr.. Weinstock had ad-
mitted that he had read the articles
and had therefore notice of those facts.
EVERYTHING GOES.
Mr.. Johnson said that this was set
ting up as fact that if the Bee" made
a statemxnt rejecting on citizens, who
ever READ il must accept as a fact
their dictum. 1t is a most monstrous
doctrine and the line must be drawn
right here Because he refused 4 let
ter written by McClatchy to the Nc
Clatchys when they demanded it. he
is to be branded as shield and pro-
lection to boodlers and blackmailers
If these things are allowed, they have
a perfect right TO demand of any man
he give up his private correspondence
to their inspection
Judge Holl said it was setting up the
dictum that when the Bee" made
charges against man it must be ac-
cepted by the community as true. If
this be the case, when a man is so ac-
cused by the Bee his fellow citizens
must accept ii as an established fact
and must refuse all communication
with him, on pain of being considered
as a shield and protection of blacknail-
ers. 1t is possible that Mr. Weinstoclz
had not the utmost confidence in the
statements of the Bee" 1t might be
possible that he remembered that the
Bee" had been convicted of libel and
therefore he did not place the utmost
credence in its statements
Mr.. Bruner asked if, in case some
man was held on examination In the
Police Court and when 1t came 10 trial
a citizen of Mr.. Weinstock's standing
in the community should contribute
$500 to his defense and shake hands
with him in court in the presence Of
the jurors. If that would not be con
sidered as shielding and protecting thar
man. Mr.. Weinstl ok. he said, alth ugh
he considered the writer either a crank
or a knave did not destroy the letter
and did not subsequently order Won
Arnold out OF his store when he called
on him. The subsequent articles in
the Bee" notified him of the charges
against Leonard and Sheehan. but not
withstanding he afterwards talks with
them as If nothing had been said
against them? Was this the duty of a
good citizen?
He afterwards publishes in the Rec
ord Union" in which he states that
he received the letter Was not his sub
sequent interviews with Chief Lees and
the Examiner" reporter connecting
links that place him in the position of a
shielder and protector of boodlers?
"Oh, the infamy Of this" said Mr.
Johnson. the infamy of this defense
These defendants lay a trap and write
a letter 10 the plaintiff in furtherancf
Of their conspiracy and then. becaus.
he refuses TO fall into their trap, they
brand him, admittedly one of the very
best citizens in the community, as 6
shield and protection 10 boodlers ang
hlackrnailers. They give him notice
that. unless he complies in every re-
spect with their demands. they vii
brand him before the community as 8
scoundrel What is there in all tbs
evidence they present that in the slight
est degree supports the charge thai
plaintiff has been a shield and protector
to boodlers2" It is shameful to allow
such evidence and he hoped the court
would not permit.
JUDGE HUGHES RULING.
Judge Hughes made the following
ruling:
In passing upon the objection mad'
by the question presented. it is neees
sary to some extent TO comment on
the weight of the testimony. and th'
court deems it advisable under the cir
cumstances that such comments shal
be made without the presence OF th'
jury.
The newspapers offered in evidenc.