The record-union., 1898-02-12

the court to pass upon, but it is mat
ter which, in the opinion of the court,
should go to the jury. and for that rea-
son L think it is material for the pur-
poses stated, that these papers should
be admitted
''Of course, all of the testimony con-
Meeting any knowledge of the plaintiff
with the transaction depends ultimate
" upon the production of evidence
showing that these men were boodlers
and blackmailers, and if that testimony
is not produced this testimony will all
be stricken out"
May l ask your honor a question:"
Attorney Johnson asked
Certainly" replied Judge Hughes.
Does your honor hold that the tes-
timony thus far adduced from Mr..
Weinstock is sufficient to go TO the
jury on the proposition that he was
shield and protection to boodlers and
blackmailers? 1 am presuming. IF
course, that they establish hereafter
these men We're boodlers and black
nailers"
Il do SO hold,'' said Judge Hughes.
Some testimony has been introduced IN
this case which tends to show 4
knowledge on his part of the improper
character of the alleged newspaper
scheme. That letter discloses the char
acter of the scheme; in other words,
that the writer of it had been nego-
tiating with the Board of Trustees, and
that he mentioned a moneyed consider
alton for the protection of his game and
his gambling he'll, etc. The nature of
the project was disclosed in that letter
and the plaintiff had that knowledge.
Now, when he is called upon to turn
over the letter he does not do it.
Whether that is strong Or very weak
testimony, il is not my province at this
time to pass upon; but 1 do say that
the court, as its duty, should permit the
testimony to so before the jury for
what it is worth"
Suppose" said Johnson. that we are
privatei ndividual-of course, we do
not rise to the dignity of a newspaper
| suppose that we should call on Mr..
Weinstock for that letter. and he says:
| Well, the letter is none of your busi-
ness. Does that make him a shield and
protection to boodlers and blackmail-
ers?"
We object to his entering into a
controversy said Mr. Metson.
Il am making no controversy at ALL"
answered Johnson.
The court will take charge of any
controversy said Judge Hughes "The
court win repeat that he deems it to
be his duty not to pass upon the weight
of the testimony, but upon it material
ity And. as 1 say, in the opinion If
this court, it is competent and mater
ial, and for that reason will be admit
ted -
After the noon recess Judge Hughes
made the following supplemental order:
4 wish to say, gentlemen, in addition
TO what the court said before adjourn
ment, in passing upon the last objac-
toni wish to call the attention Of the
| counsel TO Subdivisions > and , of Sec
ton 1870, Code of Civil Procedure:
Subdivision 2-The act, declaration
or omission of party, as evidence
/ against such party
Subdivision 3-An act or declara-
/ ton Of another, in the presence and
within the observation of a party, and
his conduct in relation thereto.
! Now, in this case" said Judge
Hughes, ''it is material for the defense
/ to show the knowledge of the plaintiff
of the matters alleged or set ont III
the letter of February 1st Now, say
under the two subdivisions which i
have read. the conduct of the plaintiff
in relation 10 that matter is IN the
opinion of the court, material 1t is
! the irrircipie announced in those two
subdivisions which the court had in
/ mind before adjournment. | did not
/ have the section before me. and (
wished to call that section to your at
| tentioa for the rule l laid down. The
| objection made was on the admission
! of that paper, and the order is that it
| be admitted in evidence for the pur-
poses stated only
| Judge Holl wanted the dates and ar
| ticles admitted and Mr.. Mettson speci-
! fed the articles on March Sd. 4th. 9Th
and 6th, entitled "A Gigantic Combine -.
More of the Combine" Rounding
Them Up" and "Sheehan the Pirate"
DID NOT UNDERSTAND 1T.
| Mr.. Johnson asked Mr. Weinstock
concerning the age and number of his
children. He showed him Won Arnold's
/ letter and asked him if he knew in
whose handwriting We're the words
| Compared by V. s.. etc" Wit
ness said it was V. S. Me-
Clatchy's writing, and that the
/ latter admitted to witness that he wrote
the words and that the letter was writ
/ ten in his presence. He was with Mr.
Marks of San Francisco when the let
/ ter arrived and did not understand the
letter. He read the letter the second
+ time, with the same result
The court ruled that only the witness
actions and not his conclusions could
be given. The jury must judge as to
/ the latter from his actions
Resumirg. witness said that be read
the letter TO Mr.. Marks and asked hin,
if he could understand It,
! The court again ruled that only Tho
acts and conduct of the plaintiff could
be admitted and not any conversation
or conclusions Of witness or others.
Witness resumed that in answer TO n
/ question put by Mr.. Marks he answer-
ed that the writer of the letter was TO-
tally unknown to him. Later Il the
day he showed the letter to Massrs
Bonnheim, Phipps and SkeeIs and asked
il any Of them knew the writer. He
then laid the letter aside as literary
curio. lie looked ON it as the emana-
tion Of a crank and paid no more A.
tention 10 it. Won Arnold called abouf
TWO weeks later. witness having mean
time received a telegram from Won Ar
mold, which he showed 10 Mr. Bonn
helm, asking if witness had received
the telegram. He told Mr.. Bonnheim
that it was evidently from the same
crank and he proposed TO take no no.
tice Of it. but at Mr.. Bonnheim's sug-
gestion, he answered it as a matter OF
| courtesy.
MEETS Won ARNOLD