The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-02-26
A SUDDEN TERMINATION.
DEFENDANTS SUBMIT THE CASE
WITHOUT ARGUMENT.
Judge Hou Argues the Case for
Plaintiff Weinstock, but Metson
Declines to Reply.

morning.
Previous TO their commencement,
however. and at half-past O'Clock,
Judge Hughes listened TO arguments OF
counsel on a motion 10 strike out the
judgment rolls in the cases of Gilman
VS.. McClatchy and Royster vs. NC
CATCHY, and reserved his decision.
Judge Holl opened the argument for
the plaintiff. He said he should Dor
row his idea, if not the language, from
q speech delivered in the United States
Senate more than sixty years ago, at
time when the brightest intelects the
nation has ever known were assembled
there When a bark, ne said, had been
tossed by wind and storm and buffeted
by the waves till she had been driven
from her course into an unknown waste
Of waters the first thing to be done
when the sun burst out after the storm
was to use her instruments to take her
latitude and ascertain where she was.
In this case, for many days they had
been driven farther and farther away
from the true issue and it was now time
10 go back to it and ascertain what it
was.
lie read the article il the Bee" that
the basis of the present suit, as set
forth in the complaint, and said that ne
might as we'll stop there and show the
jury that the article was malicious ana
that the court had decided IT to be IL
belous and intended TO damage the
character of the plaintiff. Ii was pre-
dictated upon the statements made III
an article in the Examiner. Inc de-
PENDANTS had made no effort to ma OUT
the truth, but had assumed that the
statements had been furnished by MI
Weinstock and had gone and written
the libelous article, accusing Mr.. Weln-
stock of one of the most deSteStaDle
crimes known TO the community-thac
of acting as a shield and protection for
boodlers and blackmailers. He read
from the dictionary to show that bood-
lers We're those who accept brides IN
public office. a crime he said, rightly
held in the greatest detestation.
THE DIFFERENCE.
There is a difference between SANDER
and libel. SANDER is uttered in the
presence of witnesses often in the heat
of passion and limited to its audience.
But libel is borne on the wings of the
wind all over the country; gathered by
the scavengers of the press and start
ed anew on its travels over wires from
north to south and even cabled under
the ocean to foreign lands. Libel Will
live when all the parties in this case
shall have moldered long in the dust
and be again resurrected in the records.
Whatever is printed finds its way 10
the uttermost parts of the earth and
for this reason libel and defamation
should be stopped and prohibited.
He should not do justice 10 his client
# he did not show to the jury that all
that was desired by him was exact
Justice and that he desired only justice
tn both him and the defendants. There
is but one defense that can be made to
these publications and that is that the
matter published in them is true In
trying to find out whether or not the
charges are true, almost everybody in
Sacramento has been tried and every
conceivable kind of evidence has been
admitted. Ii makes no difference
whether Sheehan is a blacNmailer or
not or if Leonard is boodler or not
II it. be proved that they are, so much
the wrose for them, but that does not
concern Mr.. Weinstock. The only
question for the jury TO consider Is
whether Mr.. Weinstock had acted as
shield and protection to boodlers and
blackmailers, knowing them to be such
HAD NOT SHIELDED THEM.
The Jury had sat here for nearly two
weeks. listening to all the evidence
that defendants could bring and he
asked the jury If they could put their
fingers on one single bit of evidence
that pointed to the fact that Mr.. Vein
stock had shielded boodlers. The
counsel for the defense have stated
that they labored far into the hours OF
the night to bring evidence TO prove
these charges, and the best evidence
that they labored in vain is the fact
that they failed to bring forth the evil
denee
The most they could bring forth in
proof OF their position is that at some
time Mr. Weinstock had received let
ter from man signing himself Won
Arnold, which he did not answer and
that shortly afterward he received an
other letter dated San Jose, asking If
the first had not been received. That
ended the correspondence until defend
ants brought Won Arnold To this city
and had him write to Mr.. Weinstock an
urgent letter from the Western Hotel,
followed by one more urgent, when the
first was not answered, and to neither OF
which was any attention paid.
When Mr. Weinstock received the san
Jose letter after consultation with his
partner he answered it as a matter of
courtesy. stating that he did not under
stand the letter and had never heard OF
him or his plan. The second letter from
the Western Hotel he answered. saying
that he was surprised 10 know that his
name had been mentioned in connec-
ton with the paper, as he knew nothing
OF the scheme.
WAS A MYSTERY.
The first letter Mr.. Weinstock received
was a mystery 10 him. as it bore at the
top the words. compared by V. s.
and posted by him in the hotel letter
box" 1t was a decoy letter-a trap
but II seemed TO Mr.. Weinstock the
emanation of a crazy man. as he had
never even heard of Won Arnold. As a
matter of fact, it was dictated by V.
McClatehy. who could neither be
considered fool nor lunatic. MIR. Me
CATCHY. who has testified that the rela-
lions between him and Mr.. WeinStock
were friendly and pleasant. went TO San
Francisco and there, in company with
a man who has been proved to be an ut
ter scoundrel, concocted this scneme