The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-02-16
He HAD A LONG SIEGE OF 1T.
NEARLY FOUR DAYS ON THE
WITNESS STAND.
Mr.. Weinstock's Testimony was
Concluded Yesterday in the
McClatchy Libel Case.

as a witness for the defense, was kept
on the stand until nearly night
Attorney Nelson went over much Oh
the ground heretofore covered, respect
ing Mr. Weinstock's knowledge OF the
case. and as a consequence very little
additional information was received
during the session.
Late in the evening c. B. Brown, the
reporter, who did most of the interview
ing in the matter of the Won Arnold
scandal and fiasco, was placed on the
stand, and will be the central figure OF
interest to-day.
At the opening of court yesterday
Attorney Hiram W. Johnson took up
the cross-examination where it was left
off on Friday last, and reverting to the
letter the witness had received from
Won Arnold, asked if he had shown it
to George NJ Mott Witness replied
that he had, and said he also had a
conversation with Mott respecting his
refusal to give the Won Arnold letter
to the Bee for publication.
After Mott had read the letter the
witness said he had asked him that in
case he had received such a letter,
whether he would have given 1t to a
newspaper for publication. Mott replied
that he certainly should not have given
it out for publication. Mr.. Mott, the
witness said. had looked at the pencil
markings on the letter and said it look
ed wonderfully like the writing of v.
S. McCiatchy, but that he would not
like to believe such a thing, as it would
imply that McClatchy was attempting
to draw him (Weinstock) into net
and that he had ever considered Nc
CATCHY square in business transac-
tons.
A motion to strike out the CONVERSE
ton with Mott, in which the latter Of
fered an opinion as to the writing, was
granted.
In answer to a question by Attorney
Johnson, Mr.. Weinstock said Mr..
Brown, the Bees" reporter, had first
asked him for the Won Arnold letter
on February 2Sth, and again on March
1st.
The witness said he had subsequently
had rhe letter photographed, and after
wards, on March 10Th, had submitted
it to the Grand Jury, together with the
correspondence which had, since the
beginning of the present case, been put
in evidence. He had, he said, turned
the entire matter over to District At
torney Ryan.
The witness, in answer to a question.
said he had had a conversation in San
Francisco with w. H. Mills and Attor-
ney Reuben Lloyd. The court held that
the conversation could not be admitted
on the ground that questions relating
to conversations during the direct ex-
animation, referred only to such as had
been held with persons residing in Sac
ramento city and county.
The witness further testified that he
had q conversation with Frank Miller
respecting the Won Arnold letter. Mr..
Miller. he said, had asserted that the
actions of the McClatchys were incom-
prehansible to him, and led him to be-
lieye they were insane. Mr.. Miller had
said that if the proprietors of the Bee"
had been led to believe that the wit
ness had been deceived, it would have
been proper for them to have gone to
him and told him of their suspicious.
Miller had also stated that business re-
lations he had had with the McClatchys
had led him to believe that they were
fair. The witness had replied that he,
too, had thought them fair until their
reporter had logged his footsteps and
even entered the precincts of his home
It had been brought out on direct
examination that John A. Sheehan had
told witness he expected to be indicted
by the Grand Jury, and when asked by
Mr.. johnson what for, the witness re-
piled that to the best Of his recollection
Sheenan had said it was for libel.
The witness, in reply to a question,
testified that the first intimation he
had that the pencil marks on the Won
Arnold letter had been made by V. 5.
McClatchy was on Monday, March 1st.
He further said that in his converse
ton with Mr. Bonnheim no mention
had been made to the establishment Of
any proposed newspaper to be con-
Quoted by Sheehan and Won Arnold.
METSON TAKES A TURN.
On redirect examination, Attorney
Metson followed up the statement that
the matter had been laid before the
Grand Jury, and formulated questions
to bring out how that had come about
He asked who had requested the wit
ness 30 appear before the Grand Jury.
Mr. Weinstock replied that he had
talked two or three times with j. O..
Coleman, who was foreman of the
Grand Jury. He could not recollect of
any subpoena having been served on
him 10 appear. He had had two con-
yersations with Mr.. Coleman in his
store, and one he believed, on the
street He was sure that the name
of " s. McClatchy was never mention
ed in connection with his in respect 10
his being a witness before the Grand
Jury On March 18th he had met Mr..
Coleman on the street. and the latter
had told him the Grand Jury would
be ready for him the next afternoon.
NEWSPAPER INTERVIEWS.
The witness said that aside from in
terviews he had made no declarations
for newspapers prior to March 21st.
Attorney Nelson inquired whether the
interviews with Mr.. Brown on March
9th were not substantially correct, and
the witness replied that he had before
answered that question A portion was
substantially correct, and a portion was
decidedly incorrect. The article that ap-
pcared In the Bee" on the date in ques-
ton was not, the witness said, substan-
TALLY correct, inasmuch as some inn
portant portions had no foundation in
fact.
When asked by Attorney Nelson to
point out the incorrect portions. Mr..
Weinstoek read that paragraph in
which he was alleged to have said that
the contents of the letter was his
strongest reason for not having it pub
lished, as IL libelled the Trustees whom
he believed TO be trustworthy. This.
the witness said. was incorrect. as ii
was made to appear that he had includ-