The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1899-12-16
WElNSTOCk CASE DISMISSED
NOTHING TO WARRANT IT'S
PROSECUTION.
letter From Federal officials to
the District Attorney of Ell
Dorado County.


springs, Ell Dorado County, the prose-
cution instituted by John E. Sexton
against H. Weinstock Of this city was
on motion of the District Attorney OF
I'll Dorado County, dismissed
Ever since the arrest District Attor-
hey Darlington has been investigating
the matter, and he found-what people
mere generally understood to be the
1act-that there was no foundation 1or
criminal charge against Mr.. Weln-
stock. The latter's connection with the
catalogue containing the Objectionable
matter had been thoroughly investl-
gated by the postal authorities Win
the result that Mr.. Weinstock was com
pletely exonerated.
When Inspector Munro learned of the
filing of the complaint in Ell Dorado
County, he, with the acquiescence o.
United States District Attorney Coombs,
wrote to District Attorney Darlington
OF that county as follows:
San Francisco (Cal), Nov. %, 1899.
Abe Darlington, Esq, District Attor-
ney Ell Dorado County, Placerville,
Cal.-Dear Sir: have just been advised
that criminal proceedings have been in
stituted by one John E. Sexton against
Mr.. Harris Weinstock of the firm of
Weinstock, Lubin & Co. of Sacramento,
for a violation of Section 1893 Revised
Statutes of the United States, and that
Mr.. Weinstock has been arrested upon
a complaint sworn to before the Justice
of the Peace at Diamond Springs, Cal.
do not know, of course, what the
specified allegations in the complaint
may be, but I presume they have refer
ence to the advertisement of an article
in the catalogue of Weinstock, Lubin
& Co.
Presenting this to be the basis of the
proceedings, I take the liberty of ad-
dressing you and of saying that the
whole matter was thoroughly investi-
gated by the Inspectors of the POST
office Department, who were satisfied
that the violation of the statute was a
technical one at the most, and that
the case did not warrant any severer
action than to exclude the catalogues
from the mails, which was done.
1t was clearly shown in the investiga-
ton that the Objectionable advertise
ment was published through mad
vertence and without unlawful intent
and that Mr. Weinstock himself had
tisement nor of its unlawful character.
AS soon as the matter was called to
Mr.. Weinstock's attention he took i'm
mediate steps to have the Objectionable
advertisement eliminated from the cat
alogues of his firm, and the same have
been readmitted to the mails.
In view of these facts and of the ex-
cellent personal and business standing
of the members of the firm of Vein
stock, Lubin & Co., it became evident
to me that the case did not warrant
any severer action than has already
been taken by the Postoffice Depart
ment, and in my judgment no jury can
lbe found that will take any different
view of the matter.
All the facts and circumstances in
connection with this matter were sub
mitted to Hon. Frank L. Coombs, Unit
ed States Attorney for the Northern
District of California, and he fully con-
CURED with me in the disposition of the
case. Very respectfully,
r. r. MUNRO,
Inspector in Charge.
The above statement is correct The
postal authorities fully investigated the
above matter with the result as above
stated FRANK L. COOMBS.
Referring to the case last evening,
Hiram w. Johnson, attorney for Mr..
Weinstock, said:
THE case was an absurd and arti-
fetal one. The articles concerning
which so much has been said, is one
of commerce, sold by every drug store
in this city and elsewhere. The adj
vertisement IN the catalogue arose
wholly through a pardonable mistake
of the person who has charge of the
firms advertising. Mr.. Weinstock
never saw the catalogue, had nothing
personally to do with its compilation,
printing or publication, and mad no
knowledge whatever or It's contents I'M
til the matter was brought to his at
tention by the postal authorities.
These authorities, after rigid inves-
tigation, saw clearly the mistake that
had been made by the advertising de-
partment of the firm, and promptly ac-
quilted Mr.. Weinstock of any knowl
edge Of the matter, or of any wrongful
intent.
ITO have continued a prosecution,
admittedly unjust, and conceived in
malice, would have been outrageous,
and doubtless District Attorney OAR
lington SO concluded"