The record-union., 1898-02-11

TO conducting a big gaming house, ana
speaks suggestiyely of Mr.. Weinstock's
name in connection with the Mayoral-
ty. The letter, it will be remembered,
was Endorsed in pencil, compared by
V. S." etc.
On February I'd witness had received
another brief communication from Won
Arnold. inquiring whether the former
letter had been received, and stating
that the writer would be delayed an
other week. This, too, was read.
The witness said that on February
9th he had sent a telegram to Won
Arnold in which he said he knew moth
ing about the matter referred to in
the letter, and did not understand the
proposition. Witness again said that
on February 2Sth he had held no con-
versation with Sheehan, but that the
latter had spoken respecting the estab-
lishment of newspaper in Sacramento
by Won Arnold.
AT the same time, the witness said,
Won Arnold had spoken about the
Clunie property, but had said nothing
about conducting a concert hall there.
The witness said he had been inter-
viewed by Reporter Brown of the Bee"
on the 9th or 2Sth of February, but
that he had not told him that Won Ar
mold had in the conversation referred to
said anything about establishing a
newspaper or starting a concert hail.
a MATTER OF DATES
The witness testified that about the
18th or Goth of March. 1897, he had
made notes of the matter partly from
memory and partly from newspapers
on file and letters received from Won
Arnold. He referred to a copy of the
notes and fixed the dates of publica-
tion by it. He received a note from
Won Arnold on February 9th, to the
effect that he was sick at the Western
Hotel. and wanted to see the witness on
business. The witness had replied that
owing to a press of business he could
not spare the time to visit Won Arnold,
but might find it possible to answer
any questions in writing. The letters
were put in evidence.
The witness identified the letter re-
ceived en- the same day from Won Ar
mold, which stated that the writer had
received a letter from his brother in
Chicago respecting the establishment Of
a daily newspaper He wished to use
the name Of the witness as an incorpor-
ator of the business, and stated that
John We'll would be connected in the
undertaking. The witness had replied
in n note to Won Arnold the same day,
that the contents of his letter had been
a surprise to him, as it was the first
intimation he had had that his name
had been connected with the enterprise,
and he could not imagine on what au-
thority it had been SO used. John We'll,
the reply stated, was a good man. 1t
closed with the wish that the enter
prise might succeed. These letters also
We're admitted in evidence.
THE PART LEONARD PLAYED
The witness further testified that on
February 9th c. E. Leonard had vis-
tied his place of business, and urged
him to interest himself in the estab-
| lishment Of the proposed newspaper.
Leonard might have said that he wish
ed the witness would think about the
proposition, but he could not recall the
precise language What the witness
did recollect was that Leonard had per-
sistently insisted that he interest him
self in the establishment of the pro-
posed daily newspaper, and that the
witness had declined to interest himself
in the matter, and said that he neither
in. To the best of his recollection the
witness had not intimated to Leonard
that he would take the matter under
advisement.
On March 11th, the witness continued.
in answer to questions propounded by
Attorney Mettson, Sheehan, Won Arnold
ard man named Casey called on him,
and Sheehan said Won Arnold had re-
n CHI ~,
cago for $4,000 as a fund to establish
| the proposed daily newspaper. The wit
ness declined to have anything to do in
the matter and told Won Arnold he be-
lieved him to be a detective in the en-
ploy of the Bee" Won Arnold had
| laughed and left, saying he had an ap-
pointment with his physician.
On March 11th, Mr. Brown. a Bee"
reporter. had called on the witness and
the latter had shown him a letter pur-
porting to have been written in San
Francisco by Won Arnold on March
| 11th. Brown. who said he knew Won
Arnold's handwriting, gave it as his
opinion that the latter had not written
the letter in qeustion.
At J. o'clock recess was taken until
| 1:30 o'clock D. m.
MI. w CiilStONh dSdilI tooh tIlc Will
stand at the afternoon session. and tes-
| titled that he had no recollection as to
whether or not at the time of the CONVEX
sation with Leonard, the latter had said
that Sheehan was to be at the head of
| the proposed newspaper.
Attorney Bruner reverted to the diary
kept by Mr. Weinstock, in which was
notes of the matter, and asked him to
produce it.
| Attorney Johnson said there had been
no order made for the witness to pro-
duce the diary in court. and the court
agreed with him. Thereupon the at
torney for the defense made a formal
demand that the diary be produced this
| morning.
Continuing, the witness said in answer
to Attorney Mettson. that on March 9th
| Sheehan had told him that he was to be
general manager of the proposed news
paper. but that he had not said that
Leonard was TO be one of the incorpora-
tors. The witness said he had not read
all of the matter published in the Bee"
! between the issues of March 4th
and March both, as there had been so
much of it that it became nauseous to
him. Some of the articles he had read,
others he had merely skinned over.
WEINSTOCK'S RECORD UNION"
ARTICLE.
The witness, in answer to a question,
said he had made the statement that
appeared in the Record Union" on the
2lst of March. 1897. in which appeared
the complaint. which about March Goth
he had filed against the proprietors of
the Bee" Attorney Mettson offered
! conN of the .Record- ITnion'' of the date