The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-02-26

result that came of it was that Mr..
Weinstoc1 refused to surrender the let
ter to Mr.. McClatchy, at whose dictation
it was written. They claim that this re-
fusal of Mr. Weinstock's acted as a
shield to boodlers and blackmailers.
How could it possibly operate so, when
Mr.. McClatchy had in his pocket copy
of the letter and was conversant with
all the features of the business, having
concocted the whole scheme in his head.
NO RIGHT TO SHOW IT.
The letter itself was a libel and the
members of the Board of Trustees could,
had they been so disposed, have institu-
ted suit for libel against the Bee"
More than this, if Mr.. Weinstock had
surrendered the letter he would have
been guilty of libel, for the person who
circulates a libel is equally guilty with
the person that utters it. What did
Mr.. Weinstock do. He took the letter,
when the Grand Jury assembled, ana
gave it together with the rest of the cor
respondence to the District Attorney,
and the Grand Jury. Was not THIS
proper? The District Attorney IS the
ccuntys prosecuting officer; was ne not
the proper one for the letter to be turned
over to?
Another point on which the defense
lays special stress is that MI Leonard
called on Mr.. Wenstock and asked MIN
to take an interest in the starting or
proposed newspaper and that the latter
refused utterly and gave Leonard no
encouragement, telling HIM tnat ne
would give him none. Defense has tired
70 introduce evidence that he said he
vould consider it, but Mr.. Welnstock
testifes that when pressed to consider
the mater he might have said, wen,
if it will give you any satisfaction,
will consider it, but want you to under
stand that l can give you no encourage
nent If he did so it was clearly
oantlenanly manner of dismissing the
subject
NOTHING IN IT.
In regard to the Examiner article,
which the McClatchy brothers say cX-
cited them to such anger that tnty
wrote the libelous article, it mad nom
inc in t that should make them angry
This is however, only admissible III
mitigation, and is not Justlncatlo1
of the publication. They complain OF
Mr. Wainstock's communication IN the
Record Union claiming that he cailed
them libelers What he did say Was
that those who disseminate libel are as
had as those who utter it, and he CANA
pretty near proving them llbelers, lot
they have been convicted three times N
this court of libel. They sent spies TO
his servant girl and to his confidential
clerk to try to find out the secrets or
his household and his business. why
a. work
of going to him in a manly manner
and telling him what they wanted 10
find our. Neither plaintiff nor his at
torneys have any sympathy with oooo-
lers or blackmailers, but he could not
see that defendants had proved any
combine.
He called attention to the reporte1 >
testimony that he took no notes OF MS
interviews with plaintiff, but on ms
arrival at the office dictated TO the
stenographer what he remembered OF
them. and Mr.. Weinstock denies Their
accuracy. He read from Reporter
Browns testimony to the effect thal
he did not write the interviews IN queS-
ton ana answer as it actually occurred,
as that was not their style, but that he
wrote it up so as to make 1t interesting
to the readers of the Bee. He SAID
that by putting it into the reporter
language and writing it UP in an III
teresting" manner. the actual state
ments were very likely to be changed
and that Mr. Weinstock says he did not
say what was attributed to him in sew
eral respects
The defendants admit that they our
lished these charges and aver that they
are true and are, therefore, justiflable
The question for the jury to decide =,
whether they have been able to prove
them 10 be true, which he claimed they
could not do. They wish the jury 20
accept II cir differences as facts that
have been proved AS to mitigation,
the claim that the article was written
| in anger was not a mitigation, as when
they were informed by Moran that they
were mistaken, they did not publish
| retraction Nor could they go back
| twenty-four days to Mr. Weinstock )
! communication in the Record UniCn
and urge it in mitigation. He wished
! to say TO them that the time had come
when the strong arm of the American
! Jury should interpose between the
newspaper libeler and his victim. The
/ latter has only one remedy, and that
/ is to bring the matter before a jury.
| II is nothing TO the sensational news
paper if regulations are destroyed, so
! long as ii makes their articles interest
ing and extends their circulation. The
only protection a man has for the rep
| utation that is dearer to him than life
or than all the gold in the Klondike is
the firmness and integrity of the jury.
! Mr. Nelson claimed that the opening
address was unfair. as counsel had not
specified which portions of the article
We're claimed TO be libelous. He did not
understand from counsers remarks
which they We're
Wei, the jury does. if you do not,
said Judge Holl.
The court said he could not instruct
counsel in the matter He had made
/ his argument before the jury and they
must determine what they considered
! libeloIs.
When the court convened after the
noon recess. Judge Hughes rendered a
decision striking out the judgment rolls
in the Gilman and Register cases. Re
based his decision on that of the Su-
prema Court in the case of the People
ex rel. Warren +. Drew VS.. John +.
| Rodgers. where the judgment roll in NJ.
/ NJ. Drew vs.. Rodgers was introduced
and allow ed. the Supreme Court decid-
! ing that evidence could not be submit
/ ted i'm es1oppel of one side unless it was
! mutual h. the parties in action.
WE SUBMIT
After Judge Holl had finished his ar
gument. consuming two hours of the
! FIVE allotted 10 his side, Attorney Met
son asked the court for five minutes
/ time for consultation on his side.