The record-union., 1898-02-17

made and the court ruled that the stat
utes allowed notes to be read to refresh
the memory of the witness but not that
OF the jury.
" S. McClatchy recalled, said that he
did not examine the inside of the papers
given to Mr. Brown. but simply saw the
Endorsement on them to the effect that
they We're notes of the interview Of the
18th with Wenstock
WHERE DID THEY GO TO?
| C. B. Brown resumed his testimony
saying that he did not know what be-
came of the notes given him by Y. 5.
! McClatchy, or where they were now
| After he read the notes of the first four
| interviews, and compared them with
! the proofs he threw them away. He
! had found during the search this noon
| paper marked Interview of c. b.
Brown with II. Weinstock.' but it was
| nothing which he could identify. He
! could tell about it without comparing
it with the Bee" He also found an
either paper marked Interview with
Weinstock March 4th," but it was not
an interview with Weinstock at all.
These were all the papers he found III
the stenographers desk. He remem-
bered Mr.. McClatchy's handing him
notes of the interview of the 18th, tell
ing him that he might be called to tes-
tify and had better refresh his memory
from it. He replied that it would be Of
no use to him, as he could refresh his
memory better from the Bee" He
thought he left the document in Mr..
| Burners office.
| In his report of the interviews he had
/ ne hot ivy,
what Mr.. Weinstock had said, but the
| reports were the substance of Mr..
| Weinstocks statements From a read
ing of the original documents, he could
not identify them as his original notes
of any Interview held by him with Mr..
/ Weinstock but was positive that the
! article in the Bee" was correct
| Messrs. Bluner and Nelson both stat
ed that they had never seen the paper
! since the day 1T was brought to the
office and did not know where it was
BROWNS TESTIMONY.
| Continuing his testimony, Mr.. Brown
said that Mr.. Weinstock told him that
! he had met Won Arnold and Sheehan.
Who came to his store and that he sup
posed it was the same man who wrote
him the letter; that Won Arnold told
| him that he was looking at the CIunie
! property with view of buying it for
| concert hall, as he and his brother
| had a big one in Chicago He thought
| Mr.. Weinstock also said Won Arnold
wished to know if he did not want 10
take an interest in it and that he re-
| piled that he did not
Witness refreshed his memory from
| the report printed in the Bee" and
said that Mr.. Weinstock said he Was
not interested in the matter at all. He
also said that Won Arnold told him he
thought of starting a newspaper, and
| asked II he did not wish to go into it
| and Lat he (Weinstock) said he did
| not He did not know whether Mr.
! Weinstock suggested that he did not
see any connection between the news
| paper and the concert hall, or whether
witness asked him if he did He had
| also said that Won Arnold had been
| inslstenf that he should consider the
matter and that he finally told him
that he would think it over. if that
! would be of any satisfaction to him.
witness said that he was sent back
| from the Office with instructions to pro
| cure Tie letter. and asked for it. but
| MI Welnstock refused to give it 10
| on the ground that he did not want to
| petray Won Aronld's confidence. as the
letter contained things that, if he him
sell had written such a letter he would
not want TO have made public He
also said in reply to questions put by
witness that Won Arnold seemed any
lous 10 get him or some other news
paper man 10 engage in the project
ana also that he did not wish to IA
quoted as saying that he would engage
IN 1t. Before they separated. in re-
| spouse to suggestion by witness M,
Nelnstock said that he could not sea
that IT would be good judgment to start
a paIer to bolster up gambIinp
scheme, and that it would be bettar r.
try to buy off the two papers now OK
| listing.
In a third interview Witness had
paper containing typwritten questions
which he asked Mr.. Weinstock to an
sWef' and he wrote the answers on II
but he destroyed it after he had wrjt,
ten his report.
Mr.. Johnson demanded that the ma
per be produced as the best evidence
but the court overruled the objection
witness said that he told Mr.. Vein
/
there was combine in the Board of
| Trustees for starting the paner and
gambling hell, and also that he or his
partner had some idea of taking an in
terest in the paper. Mr.. Weinstocl,
said he was very much surprised to
hear of the affair. He had no acouaint-
ance with Won Arnold. and had not
agreed TO put up any roney for the
| had ba
the fact that Mr.. Well was 10 be Pres
ident and Sheehan Manager. After CON
sultation with Mr.. Bonnheim. Mr..
Weinstock declined to let him have the
| letter, saying that it was a business
| communication, or something of that
sort
! Witness called again on March 4th
and asked him if he had a letter with
| V. S. McClatchys writing upon il and
he showed witness the top portion of n
| letter, and asked him if he knew the
| handwriting. and witness said he did.
| that il looked very much like V
| McClatchy's writing. Witness did not
read the letter. and Mr.. Weinstock said
| 1t came from a perfect stranger. ard
| he had shown it to his partners. WIN
thought it came from crank It con-
tanned statements regarding men whom
he thought to be honest and if they
had been made aboutt witness, for in
stance. he should consider himself a
scoundrel to give them to the world.
and thought witness would agree with
him. He told witness that this letter
with McClatchy's writing on ii was
signed Charles Won Arnold, while the
other communications We're signed Carl
Won Arnold or C. j. Won Arnold.
N-E,INSTO~K pENroNrc,-rrr, ,rrr,r>