The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-02-18


nected with the alleged combine
| The witness was excused
A QUESTION OF BOODLING.
Angus Ross was next placed on the
stand and was again questioned by At
torney Bruner as to who gave the order
to close the gambling games he was con-
Quoting on or about March /, 1897, and
who a day or two later gave orders
to allow them to be opened again.
| To the Introduction Of the testimony
of Ross the attorneys for the plaintiff
strenuously objected. Mr.. Bruner ar
gued that the Bee" article complained
| of said that Mr.. Weinstock was ex-
ceedingly ill-advised When he appeared
before the public now as a shield and
protection to boodlers and blackmailers.
He oontended that the charge was JUS
titled, because Weinstock had withheld
the letter of Won Arnold until it was
published in the Bee" of March 10Th,
because ne met Won Arnold February
| 10th, and Leonard had asked him to
join the newspaper enterprise, although
he had declined on February 9th. and
that he had refused to give the letter
for publication when asked for it on
February 18th by a Bee reporter.
Mr. Johnson, in reply, said there was
not a scintiila of evidence even tending
to show that Mr. Weinstock had been
a shield or protection to wrongdoers.
The article in the Bee was published
April | I. 1897. and the charge was that
Mr.. Weinstock now was shield and
protection to boodlers and blackmaiers.
This could not be the case in law, nor
| in fact. On March 10Th Mr. Vein
Tt, ,alo
the Grand Jury and the District Attor-
ney of the county, and it had remained
With them. The letter was written by
| the McClatchys, and they retained
copy of it, They admittedly knew all
about it. How could the refusal. to give
up McClatchy's letter to McClatchy,
on McClatchy's demand. constitute
Weinstock a shield to wrongdoers?
Leonard had called on Mr.. WeinstocK
about the newspaper, but had done so
at Won Arnold's request. Won Arnold
was a Bee" agent, acting for Nc
| CATCHY The facts upon which The
defense relied We're their own letter,
and the visit, at their request-in other
words, upon trap laid by them,an a
job perpetrated by them. 1t was infa-
nous, Mr.. Johnson said, to listen TO
could be shown on Mr.. Weinstock's
part, the door would be thrown wide
open and no objection would be made
to any testimony of that sort but in
Mr.. Weinstock's case to permit proof
of some other persons offenses was
monstrcus and outrageous.
Upon the conclusion of the argument
Judge Hughes said the opinion he
! chOjllH render the nnint N IN
would not he proper for the jury to
hear. The jury was accordingly dis
missed for the time being and the
Judge. reverting to the question at is
sue, said that early in the case he had
ruled that before the evidence Of Ross
could be admitted it would be required
| that the defendants produce evidence
that the plaintiff had been connected
with the matter charged. The opinion
concluded as follows:
1T is not the province of the court to
pass upon the weight Of any testimony
that has been introduced in this case.
| Whether the court considers the evil
! dence very Weighty or exceedingly
light. is absolutely immaterial.
THE court is of the opinion that
there is some testimony in this case
which in the absence If other testi-
mony, would support verdict in this
case, and believing that it becomes the
duty of the court TO admit the testi-
mony which is now offered, and as I
say l do not want to comment upon
the weight of the testimony, which
goes to make this testimony material
And it is sufficient to say that the
court is of the opinion that there is
some testimony on the proposition, and
therefore that the testimony now Of
fered, is material. and shall be ad-
mitted."
LEONARD AND THE SAFE
Then the witness Ross was asked
what games We're referred to.
Johnson put in an objection on Hne
ground that it was immaterial which
was overruled, and the witness said
the games were faro, roulette and
sometimes craps.
Attorney Bruner asked the witness
| by whose orders the games were
/ opened. to which he replied that no.
body had ever given him orders to run.
The witness said he had known c. E.
Leonard in February, 1897.
Attorney Johnson objected to a
question as to whether or not the wit
/ itcSS w dS iillEltSltt4 III al OIuIildHct De-
fore the City Board of Trustees in No
vember or December 1894, which was
| overruled
Ross then said there was such an
ordinance, called the Club Ordinance"
and that he was interested in its pas
sage
! Attorney Bruner asked the witness
whether or not ne had made any ar
! y.ay1 NIT 7 10
was to vote for it,
The witness replied that he had gone
to Leonard with the ordinance in cues
ton and told him it would be a benefit
to the city by putting much money in
the treasury. and had told Leonard if
he would vote for its adoption he
/ (Ross) would give him his interest in
a safe which Leonard was then using
| Attorney Johnson objected to a ques-
ton whether Leonard had voted for
the ordinance. and the objection was
sustained on the ground that the rec
ora Of the vote on the ordinance was
the best evidence
| Ross testified that the safe, so far as
he knew. was still in Leonard's pos
session, and that he cd not consider
that at this time he ROSS had any
| interest in it, He had never. he said,
received any money from Leonard for
! his one-half interest in the safe and
| had never since the passage of the or
dinance, claimed TO have any interest
! in it.
| On cross examination the witness
said Mr.. Weinstock had nothing what.
! ever TO do With the adoption of the or
dinance, the safe. or with the conversa-
1