The record-union., 1898-02-24

After sc me argument the court struck
out both answer and explanation from
the record.
WHY HE WAS ANGRY.
Mr.. Johnson read categorically from
the ''Exs miner article, and asked if
the various statements aroused the ire
of witness and he answered that taken
as a whole, they did. Mr. johnson ask
ed why, when the Examiner" reporter
told witress that he was in error as to
Mr.. Neinstock's statements, he did not
publish a retraction. Objection was
made, and witness was not allowed TO
answer. Mr.. Johnson asked if witness
believed when he wrote the headlines
Trying His Case Out of Court" he
believed that it was SO, or ne would
not have written it. Mr. johnson ask
ed II Witness had not been doing just
that thing during this trial, by COM
ment1ng in the Bee" upon the evidenc!
given, and witness answered that hs
had not, further than in the headlines,
which was always done in such cases
The court said this was not the way
in which to bring the matter before tin
court II defendants had done wrong
Witness identified the articles of in
corporation and agreement in relation
to the proposed newspaper. and said
the signature of Won Arnold was one
of those that he used, as he signed his
name in different ways He named
number Of persons who had seen the
articles, but did not think any of the
Bee reporters had ever seen them
He did not think he knew in Novem-
Der or December, 1896, that there was
talk of starting a. new daily paper
He thought it was about or after the
lst of January that he heard that Mr..
Sheehan had been in communication
with Grove l.. Johnson relative to start
ing a new daily paper. He had known
IN general way that Sheehan had been
wanting for several years to start such
a paper. He did not think that prior
to the publication of the fact any of
his reporters knew that Won Arnold had
been talking OF establishing a newspa-
per.
Won ARNOLD'S REPORTS.
On redirect examination witness
stated that nothing was published in
the Bee" about Won Arnold's being at
dinner at the house of Mr. Vein
stock. They told Mr.. Stillwell what
they wanted in the matter of corrobora-
tion of Won Arnold's reports, and he
formulated the plans for corroborating
them. In answer to a question as to
how many days the publication of the
combine articles had extended he
stated that it was from about the 1st
to the 10th. There was no feeling or
his part against Mr.. Weinstock on Feb
ruary lst, but there had been three oc-
caslons on which he had felt bitter to-
ward Mr.. Weinstock several years be-
fore. one of them was about the
time OF the Capitol removal scare. of
late he had had no feeling
c. K. M'CLATCHY TESTIFIES.
c. K. McClatchy was called and
testified that he read the article in the
Examiner a little before noon on the
day ii was repubished in the Bee"
and became very indignant for certain
reasons He sent for his brother and
they consulted in regard to the mat
ter and concluded that it should be
answered then and there Witness
wrote the article and it was pub
l1shed in the late edition. He consid-
cred 1t as a sequence to long list Of
circumstances that had been going on
for a long time since the expose began
ne bee had begun a series of arti-
cles making charges of corruption and
blackmail by John A Sheehan.
Exception being taken to a statement
lhat the investigation had broadened
ana taken in other matters, as a conclu-
SION OF witness, Mr.. Bruner argued that
the line OF testimony was admissible.
IN We" OF the allegations in the COM
plalnt. He. said that plaintiff claims
the Bee article is slibalous. but viii
not point out specifically where it is
libelous.
Mr. Johnson said the defense wished
TO read the article and offer it as proof
that the matter contained therein was
true. AS for what is libelous. the law
points that out, and counsel knew It
well.
WHAT THEY COUNTED ON.
Witness said that the investigation
was continued of the alleged combina-
ton for political corruption. and de-
PENDANTS counted on the aid and as
sistance of the best citizens of the com
munlty, and amongst them Mr.. Vein
stock.
The statement in reference to Mr..
Weinstock was stricken out by the
court.
witness resumed, saying that reports
had been made to him that Mr.. Vein
stock had commenced an action against
him for $4,000. and had stated in va
rious places that this expose had been
made not so much for the burmese Of
exposing corruption as for the purpose
of running his reputation. Mr.. Vein
stock had made public declarations in
print in both the Record Union" and
the Bee He made a reply in the
Bee on March I'D in reply to Mr..
Weinstock's article of the DIST. Be
tween that time he published no article
containing Mr.. Weinstocks name until
april 18th. The Examiner" article
stated, he said, that Mr.. Weinstock had
called on Chief Lees to tell him what
he knew of Won Arnolds character. and
this, with another Examiner" article
and the libel suit then pending. made
him so indignant that after consulta-
ton with his brother he wrote the arti-
Gle. At the time he wrote the article
he knew OF charges against Trustee
Leonard in connection with a safe.
THERE WERE OTHERS.
On cross examination he acknowl-
edged that in the Bee" of March 25th
Mr.. Weinstock's S name did appear in
connection with the suit and that the
large head lines contained his name.
He would not testify that il did not ap-
pear on other occasions before April
14th He did not know that he knew of
the charges against Leonard in connec-
ton with the safe matter, prior to the
articles of March 4th. 9th and 9Th, con-
tanning the charges of corrupt combina-
ton. He did not know whether he
would have published it or not Just then,
if he had known it as il might have