The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, December 20, 1900, Page 2

[ THE 'SAN FRANCISCO CALL, THURSDAY, DEOEMBER 20, 1900. STORY OF THE BARONS IMMORALITIES CLOSES 1 | L *DURING RECESS -~ i d his com- called on his own behalf. His testimony | follows De Your name s John D. Spreck- are yéu, Mr. Spreckels? n f & mile f with buggy hi imbed over the the hillsid: in the city of San Francisco? g have you lived there? t forty-four years. You are the proprietor of the newspaper San Francisco Call? A r over three years. Q.—You were the proprietor at the time the road and ame back and the e in question was published? wo were g horse and buggy e € e W in at n- ime of the publication of that Mr. Spreckels, on the day that it was = - where were you? Witness With a Memory. . s in Ealinas. ess said he| Q—In the county of Monterey? years and at of the time I was in Salinas, and way from Salinas up to San Francisco. ved there on the afternoon of the 25th, the day of the publication. Q.—How long had you been in Ealinas im- medtately previous 1o the %th? He <A —A week or over. 3 —You bad hecn there constantiy? A —Yes, sir remained | Q.—The city of Salinas {s some hundred and re questioned | twenty odd miles from San Francisco? trips subse was able A.—1 was not exactly in the town of Ba- I was in the town called Spreckels, L g we have a beet sugar factory. It was 2E TIPS L0 | the Cpening of that beet sugar factory that I Dlaces, giv. | attended Q.—About four miles from Salinas? that baffied to discredit his testi- he said he did not re- aguire asked if his mem- | gh witness had shown ates and his doings for | no less than remark- A.—About four miles south from Salinas. Q. —What was the first knowledge that you s particular article? re—We object to the question as irrelevant and immaterial. court—The objection is overruled. Maguire—Note an exception. he first knowledge was when I read The ¥ way up on the train. >u about this case?” e, a n:ner}, who cfamv‘ ‘;{ eles wit a letter of in- e S 3 Q—At that time, Mr. Spreckels, did you wo Seiends bE shing. know the plaintift = here, Baron J. H. von ng said to you about pay. ng money in it? Schroeder ? A 1 did know him: yes, sir. long had you known him? a number of years. 1 did not ow him intimately. I knew him to bow tc him and met him occasionally at the club. D44 you entertain toward Baron von eder any personal malice or animosity? Not the slightest. Had you ever had any difficulties with him of any kind? A.—None whatever. 0.—Did you ever have any business him? A g examination concerning his | sire asked the witness If lu 1 the dining-room all the Hotel Rafael the answer. ber what day it was that ntif on the hill back of | member. Ju with None at all J or August?” | @ Before the publication of that article, Mr. 1 do not remember. Spreckels, han” Barop " von Schrodder's eptember + | name been connected with any matter which was not ! came up in The Call office in Wwhich you were in September. Aug 1 called upon to make a decision as to a certain were you to the plaintiff | publication? en you first saw them?” A.—Yes, sir. I aTs AWl 1t was some vious to th coniinue to advance toward A —Well it was some time previous to the ¢ Ard | Lublication of the article which Js now_the 3 e matter of controversy here, and I think it must sir; 1 walked slowly toward | J."L 0 “Shout two weeks prior to that time. Q- About two weeks prior o that? 414 you go within ten feet of them, | 3 Yoo sir E say in your deposition? | Q—WIll you state the circumstances under which you were called upon to take & part in that matter as proprietor of The Call, and & the ultimate sav as to what should be ished in it? Scandal That Was Not Published. and the: k me A.—Well, on or about the 10th of October, at night, about 12 o'clock, 1 received a telephone | message from The Call office, and Mr. Leake ‘w-: at the other end. He said: *Mr. Spreck- PALACE HOTEL CUT OUT OF IT els, we have a story here over which I wisl to consult you. There are a number of prom- inent people Involved in it, and I can't give you their names over the telephone, and I Story of Ejecting a Guest|gisk ¥, ‘,fo.‘,"’-‘:z‘;‘iff";xf.‘,’t;;'e?.a’fli ’;“‘&h‘;.":?: rode down to the torial rooms, reaching [s Not Allowed in There between 12 and 1 o'clock in the morning. | The story of an episode which occurred— Evidence. Mr. Maguire—1 want to object at thip point. If you will call this matter out by question, Andrew Ackersreen was called. Wit- |80 ifat T can object to your questions, it will aid b e " more gréetty. ees said he lived in San Francisco and | ™y Deimas—1 have asked the question, it night watchman at the Palace | there is any objection to it you may make it. : T e e et | Maad T i met oot up a0t - about 1t, S e acneny s conducted the | TR Now he s proceecing to state what he and Mr. Leake talked about concerning this | particular matter. Mr. Delmas—Very well, I will bring it out. Q.—You have miready stated, Mr. Bpreckels, that you were called up from your residence somewhat after midnight on the night of the i0th of October. A—1 would not fix the date exactly; it was on_or about that date. Q.—On or about that date? A Ves, #ir. Q.—And that you went to The Call office and there you met Mr. Leake, the manager? A—Yes, sir, and Mr.— Q. (Intéerrupting)—Who informed you that your opinion, or your decision was desired upon some important matter that it was contem- plated to publish or withhold from publica. tion? A.—Yes, sir. will ask you if Baron J. H. von Schroe- the plaintiff here, was involved in that maiter? s the nature of your duties ere? To keep out disreputable womeh and men and to look out for fires.” 2 at the hotel on the night of our attention called to any im- that night?” round pe Ece; the place was remote from of the occurrences referred to 1 the article alleged to be libelous. Delmas contended that the testimony | ie, as he sought to produce | e cted toward that portion of the article alieged to be libelous in which | it wae stated that the Baron was now free to conduct his hotel as he saw fit and in t his brother from being m any more hotels. “The jury will be instructed,” said| A.—His name was involved in it; yes, sir. Judge Angellottl,” “that the defendant| Q—I will ask you to state what it was. need establish the truth of those state- | Mr. Maguire—I object to the question upon sments y which are directed at the |the £round that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial plainufr. The Court—Was it in this matter of this Delmas argued that the statement re- particular publication? A.—No; it had nothing to do with this pub- licetion whatever. The Couri—1 don't quite understand this. Mr. Delmas—It is somewhat dificult to make it understood upon this bare objection. Mr. Spreckels has been charged with malice here and he has been charged with malice in terms very emphatie, if not vituj fve, by the counsel on the ‘gpher side, who has denounced him as a malicfous man, who was using his mewspaper and wealth to gratify his per- sonal malice against this plaintifl. That I8 about the substance of it. Now the of the testimony which I desire to_introduce is | this: That some weeks before the publication of the article in questicn another transaction, | guite like the stories that have been r Bere in evidence was to the o The Call, for publeation, in which the plaintift ferred to wouid be used as showing | malice, on the conhtention that the de- fendant had made a wanton attack upon the plaintiff”’s brother. The court held that the instructions to the jury would remove any prehen- sion on that point and sustained the ob- jection, refus to let the Palace Hotel epleode be exploited in testimony. ANOTHER STORY IS SUPPRESSED Proprietor of The Call Had No | here and his brother were , and that Malice Toward the | 3tr. Spreckels, against the @dvice and news- Plaintits. Daser apinion of his wanAper-asd his WE. ain . | publication of it and did | Mr. Maguire—We submit that it is wholly, John D. Bpreckels, the defendant, was | "M Delmasiet me coll your B BROTHER. ALEXIS TAKES A SNOOZE « -~ BARON VON SCHROEDER LISTENS TO THE STORY OF HIS ESCAPADES AND GIVES OPPORTUNITY FOR A CHARACTER STUDY. e e T v THINKS HE'9."up AGAINST ITS. e — tion to a certain line of argument which hns[ Q.—You arrived in San Francisco on the af- | tell you that he had been called upon by Baron A.—Yes. | course, made Mr. Spreckels assent to a stats deen produced “here, with your Honor's sanc- | ternoon of the 25th about what time? von Schroeder or his representative to sign Q.—And he was well known to you? | ment which he never made. Mr. Spreck: tion. The subsequent conduct of Mr. Spreckels | A.—About 4 o'clock in the afternoon, another letter declaring that the statements A.—Yes, sir. | never said that he modified it; he said that or of his manager has been allowed to be| Q—Four o'clock? contained in The Call were untrue, and that | Mr. Delmas—The witness is with you, gentle- | General Warfield had refused to sign it. iven m“evidpm- here for ;.ne qorbeee :f ,.,‘,],.“-, | A—Yes sir. hthndeecllned to dn;‘o? o men. The Court—Well, Mr. Spreckels has stated ng malice, and a line of evidence has been ~Did you that day, that evening, read the r. aguire—Object to as immaterial, 1 = now that he ne r 80 stated. offered . to show or in ofder to attempt w\saqn Francisco Bulletin? . relevant and incompetent and leading and sus- Witness Cross-Examined. Mr. MaguireHe stated that that occurred prove that they were malicious, to show that| A —1 did. gestive. Mr. Maguire: Q.—Mr. Spreckels, you say |at a subsequent Interview a certain pubilcation, Whether authorized or DId you, in the San Francisco Bulletin, | The Court—It is open to the suggestion that | you are the proprietor as well as the publisher | Mr. Delmas—No, sir, that that did oceur, not not, or whether genuine or not, appeared in|read a paper, or what was in form a letter, | it is leadinc. of The San Francisco Call? | that he modified 1 an evening paper, and that notwithstanding | purporting to be signed by General Warfleld? Mr. Delmas—I {leld to that suggestion, then. A.—Yes, sir. The Court—Mr. ckels has already stated the publication in' that paper the manager or |~ A _T aia, Q.—Did Generai Warfleld in that conversation | Q.—Are you engaged in other businesses? | that he Aid mot so state roprietor of The Call 4id not retract or mod- | Q. _At what time of the day did you first | S8y anything to you about his having been re- | A.—Yes, sir. Mr. Maguire—I want to say that I don’t care €y the publication which they had made on | have cognizance of that publication > in the | Quested by Baron von Schroeder or a represen- | Q. —In what businesses are you engaged as | anything about that. whether he stated that the of October; the argument and the | Bujleting tative of his to sign another letter? You can | proprietor; what other businesses? he modified it or insisted that it should be implication being, as I take it, that it Was| A “\vel that evening. wer yes or no. A.—Well, I am engaged in the sugar busi- | shanged their duty after seeing this letter or learning | Q — Atter dark? Mr. Maguire—Objected to as immaterial, ir- [ ness, the steamship business, commission busi- | Mr. Delmas—He did not insist that it be of the letter of General Warfleld, to have made | A" fUhen T fecelved the Bulletin at my | Televant and incompetent, leading and sug- | ness-— Sanges investigations further into that matter and if | pome gestive. Q.—(Interrupfing.) In the commission busi- | The Court—Mr. Spreckels himself corrected it they found that their previous article was N8 0 o0 nome? The Court—The objection is overruled. ness Mr. Delmas—Very well. either unwarranted or to0 severe to have mod- | 2 “g¢ YT Mr. Maguire—Note an exception. A.—Yes, sir. Mr. Maguire: Q.—Mr. Spreckels, was any- ified or retrated it | Q—After business hours? umMr, Delmas, I can't answer that ques- | Q.—Are you the owner of any hotels? thing said at that first interview on the 26th May we not, by the same line of | A.—After business hours. o Dy, 3% 0 e A.—Yes, sir. | of October about General Warfleld’s having reasoning, and upon precisely the | ame analogies, show antecedent acts on the part of the proprietor of the paper, in order to satisfy this jury that, far from having any mal- ice against this plaintiff, the propri- | etor of tha® paper had, against the judgment of his staff, exercised hl-’ | personal authority to suppress a previous article upon him, and to shield him to that extent, im hopes of reformation? It is exactly— ‘ Mr, Magulre (interrupting)—The statement of Mr. Delmas is entirely and absolutely improper. | He is not now merely arguing for the admis- | Bion of this evidence. | Mr. Delmas—Pardon me. | Mr. Maguire—] am interrupting the argument | because of statements that are improper con- | tained in it | The Court—He has simply stated what he ex- | pected to prove. i r. Maguire—Yes, sir, and the Supreme Court | has repeatedly declared that that is not the | proper thing to_do. Mr. Delmas—If your Honor please, there is a | well known and proper way to object to a state- | Mr. Maguire—They called for investi; ment. If 1 have said anything that is im- | tion; he says that he sent for General proper the learned counsel can object to 1t | fleld” he will call it to my attention by objection, and | 1 ackndwledge the error, I shall retract it; but the habit of getting up and interrupting coun- | sel in an argument Is neither commendable, in | my opinion, nor leads to the orderly conduct of | the case, however frequently it may have been | A indulged in here. I said that i the subsequent | conduct of the defendant may be shown—and that it may be establiched in this case by your | Honor's rulings—by a parity of reasoning, it o my mind seems inevitable that previous con- duct may also be shown; just as in the case of the condition of a man's mind as to soundness or unsoundness when, for instance, he executed & will, the ultimate inquiry is in this case, what was the condition of the testator's mind Q. General ke to ha M —The next day were you in San Francisco? A.—Yes, sir. Defendant Made Investigation. Q—What steps did you take on the next day for the purpose of ascertaining what foundation | there was In the letter of General Warfleld and the apparent contradictjon between that letter and the ar¢icle in The Mr. Maguire—Objected to as irrelevant, im- material and incompetent, The Court—I think that is admissible, Judge, Mr. Maguire—Your Honor will remember that | the reading of the Warfleld letter had reference to the publication of an editorial on the morn- ing of the 26th." Mr. Delmas—No, sir. The Court—Oh, 1 don’t understand that it can be confined to that, Judge. Mr. The Mr. Maguire—We note an_exception. (By direction the reportef reads the ques- tlon.) A.—1 sent for General Warfleld, asking him to come to my office in The Call building at half-past one. Mr. Maguire (Interrupting)—We object to the statement of his desire. Mr. Delmas—We submit that that Is proper. ne- | ,Maguire—We submit the objection. Court—The objection is overruled. My desire was— The Court—He may testify whether or not arfleld called there, and then I would ked. a question Delmas—I will g You sent for Genegal Warfleld Yes sir; for a purpose. Q.—What was your purpose? Mr. Maguire—Objected to as immaterial, Ir- relevent and incompetent. The Cotrt—The objection is overruled. Mr. Maguire—Note an exception. A.—My purpose was to ascertain, seeing the contradiction of The Call article in the Bulletin made by Gen- eral Warfield, I wanted to ascertain ve you an opportunity. own him, state and then taly, quals letter cially denial The tion? small A1 eral Warfleld. Je; I am speaking of that interview. A.—Nothing was said at that in- terview, but I have had several with he told me that an Baron's had come td him with a y that he knew the article to be refused to sl of saying that he did not these things of his own knowledge. Q. field call your attention to the wording of this Mr. Maguire—One moment. the ground that it is leading, suggestive, im- material, {rrelevant and incompetent. Mr. Delmas—1 yield to thepoint that it is leading. Q.—Did he call your attention to any special wording of the letter that had appeared in the Bulletin? Mr. Delmas—Yes, sir. of the learned counsel to be scared at very The Court—The objection is overruled. , answer it in your ve had several Interviews with Gen- and in one of these interviews ment which he desired signed, which would have made him and unt e. He said that he such a one, and he had his attorney, Mr. Naph- to prepare a statement which fled his statement to the exvent know || n that conversation did General War- published in the Bulletin, and espe- to the fact that it did not contain a of the truth of this article in The Call? Objected to on Court—That wi at this first conversa- | 1 matters. my brother, we each own a half interest in it. of the Coronado very much the same, are they not, the same character of people? hotels? Q.—What hotels do you own? A.—The Coronado Hotel. Q—The Coronado Hotel? A.—Yes, sir; I do not own it myself, but with objected to the phraseology of another letter that was drafted by someBody? A.—Not at that ti but/at a subsequemt meeting. Q.—Well, I will come to that meeting pres- ently. You testified, as I understood you, that Genéral Warfield called attention to the fact Q.—You and your brother are the proprietors Hotel ? A.—Yes, si me that his letter, as blished n QWhere is that hotel situated? fhe “Bunctin, aia not aeny ‘the. trath of A.—In San Diego County. as published in The. Call, but simj Q.—At Coronado Beach, California? | tated that he had no knowlddge of ths A.—Yes, sir. that the thing was true of his own knowledge? Q.—It is a large hotel there, is it not? Mr. Delmas—Of his own personal knowledge. A.—Yes, sir, Mr. Maguire—Of his own knowledge. I thimk Q.—And a summer resort? that was the language of Mr. ‘Spreckels, and Yes, sir. that T think is more accurate than Mr. Leake's Q—It is a Dleasure resort? recollection. A.—Yes, sir. The withess—Well, 1 am stating it from Q—And a health resort? | recollection; I could not use his exact words. A.—Yes, sir, it is all of those thin Q—Was that the purport of what he said? O.—Are you familiar with the Hotel Rafae n this city? 1 am not. A.—Yes. Q—And that statement was made by War- fleid to you? —You have seen it, have you not? ok Xog 8 —I have entered the hotel but once in my Q—On the— A. (Interrupting)—On the —What is that? —TI have ouly been in the hotel once in my | and that was a great many years ago. | ~You were there once? Q—On the 25th of October, 15997 A.—Yes, sir. Q—Did he say to you at that time Be had | no personal knowledge of the fact or that he —Yes, sir. » | knew nothing personally of the facts? Q.—You know it to be & summer resort? A.—No, sir, he did not personally so_state. A.—Yes, sir. He sald th in substance, the article’ was Q—A large and commodious place? A.—Yes, I believe it is a good sized hotel. | Q.—The patronage of the Hotel Rafael and | he patronage of the Hotel del nado are Q.—But did he y at had no personal knowladge Had to Write Denial. ' that tim ot the fac that he 7 Mr. Maguire—1 object to 1t as Immatertal, | A dn what respect? e e e o trrelevant; incompetent, leading and sugses: | & _The same character of people gensrally. | i Substance eghe article was true. but that Hive: "And I mow call attention {0 the brac- | S \Well, T don't know; I mever was & resi- | he had fo wiite ¢ nial 5o as"lo make it tice of counsel in first making a statement in | gent of the Hotel San Rafael, so I can't say | PoSSiDle to be released from the lease. the form of a leading question to the Wit- | ag to that. Q—And did he call your attention to the Dess, then upon oWlection abandoning that | %' S8t snow the gemeral character of | faCt that the letter stated that he did not statément and calling upon the witness 1o | tne two hotels. | have personal knowlsdge. or that the thing Snswer'concerning the same matier, and 1 ob- | X “Well. T “think the Coromado Hotel ge- | WE3 UAUTOF, 5, far % DS personal knowledgs ect 16 that s Improper practice. o de- | was co gl Sr. Delmas—I call attention to the practice | PSad® PrIRCIPALY Upoh Hte e mccer "ot ha Mr. Delmas—He did not say that. Q—But you know the character of the tWo | pp, Court—Do yeu understand that question, | Mr. Spreckels? A.—Well, 1 think the Coronado Hotel de- | M. Spreckels® =~ 0 % mplicated, but T can at the very time that he executed this Will? | Upe ner sy instructions to Mr.| w S pends principally upon Eastern visitors who | A—Well, It ls rather complicated, but T 3 : L, A * Maguire—Note an exception. jeelty ouse Tastes state and ‘re sy e ey S Wes 1L tAInied With pre. | Lealke had been adhered to, and that | (B} direction the reporter reads the ques- | 3% 50", ‘Sreat” many Callfornians patrontze | = Saguire.You say he called your atten udice or bias against certain individuals, or | is to verify every article that is pub- | t9n) it, do_they not? o % e e i did and free? Was it subject t A.—Well, he called my attention to the fact | ™y "o o5 "in the summer time, tion to fact at that time that he T Candld AN as it heting with entive | 1ished in the paper, verify it before | that he said in this letter that he did not | o 73 "% T mmer time? | In this letter, in his letter that was pu Sndus inflaence, OF Wi It Roling Nl cour | Dublication. know these things of his own knowledge. He | 10 the s in the Bulletin. deny absolutely the t B ot oot ok tiare at ot (e WHLL | Q. —Tes?, said. know they are o, but I had %0 @0 | Gife s ‘patronteed n the winter time by | Ihe TS Sam: DUl ouly sald fnac - v 4 3 £ as his owledge w - [ias cxecuted. Do ohe Detter. kows than the | WhigAnd for that purpose 1 sent for General Rt Magulre—Now, I move to strike that out BROPRSRNG Shos thive Chom SHINE Gimatnt | .28r.” Defane. Outerreg sw, you _ are earned counsel, and, 1 . | Warfleld, 80 a8 to find out whether his state- —Yes, sit. that a broad latitude of inquiry is permitted of a period, both before and after that time, in order, as the authorities say, that the light of the pest and the future may be reflected, one forward and the other backward, upon this Q. ments, his letters were true. He acknowledged to me that— (interrupting)—He came to your office? Warfield’s Denial Explained. on the uestion, the I 9 he Court—1 think it is, Judge. The motion 1s_dened. Mr. Maeguire--We note an exception. ground that it is not responsive to the it part of It. Q. From the Fast and elsewhere? | réading from the letter and the witness has A.—Yes, sir. not testified from this letter 5 Wart 2, | He has said he called " ‘Warfield’s Letter Again. = Hie han ool by seilet Nie o The Jurt—Judge Maguire Q.—When you talked-with Gene-al Warfield now asking the J ki about his letter published in the Bulletin on | Witness whether, at this rview on the 26th particular " point. Now, "prejudice ‘or blae, | A—He came to my office, and I acked him No Melice in fls” E:‘:’“s‘ln e ith 'of October, 1389, he told you that ne | of October, General Warfleld so stated to him. subjection to Influence, or re freedom, | concerning the letter. e sald that he had | Mr. Delmas: Q.—Mr. Spreckels, with refer- | ;.4 ‘signed the letter for the reason that you | Mr. Maguire: Q.—You say he called your at Spaan ord “"l;"“":’l::- s ol P oen s that he had to do It for | anca to the editorials that are published In | have stated? | tention to the form of i in’ the let- fon can” be thus filustrited, WhY ‘1s " Rot]: Mr. Maguire (Interrupting)—Watt pow. You | Xhe Call, ‘is ihefe & Beaciics of subsaltiiak |’ A—Yee M . ' o o0 vl e ttme. thet | Rt T ek 2n ‘malice, which is also & mental condition, to be | are calling for conversation now. those editorials to your inspection regularly hflh A iodined that origital letter 1 ed him concerning his denial Simiiafly illustratea? If the subsequent con- | Mr. Delmas—indeed 1 am calling for conver- | €Very day? . o G e e [ He Rime s emid B g g duct of the testator, after his will, may be | sation. A.—Yes,. sir; 'A.—No, T did not %o testify; I sald that 1| A—And why he made it. shown, In order to determine what his mental | = Mr. Maguire—I object to the question. I don't | DSt ONE.. .0 '\ ook every day? was subsequent. Q—Yes? conditin was at the time he made his will; | think this conversation is called for by the | @4t haltpas @—Oh, that it was at a subsequent inter-| A.—And ke told me that he had to make it hie previous conduct may be shown for the question, but Mr. Delmas says it i, and ‘{ vre- & "Tne ediforials are submitted to you for | view that he had said that? {rat denial otherwise he was afraid that the same purpose, Why may it not, In a case of this | sume that makes it so now. I object to the | Q- proval? A-—Yes, sir. | Barggpwouid g0 back on his agreement to re- Kind, where the subsequent conduct of the pro- | question on the Sround that a conversation be- | YOUr 4pRroyal or disapprova Q—How long_after the first? | grasor of T Jhiur e :‘:y“‘fl({“‘z“g‘"'hmhfi tween this witness and General Warfleld on| Q7 i¢the time this editorial was tor | Mr. Deimas—Now, if your Honpr please, the | conduct may equally be given in evidence, and especially when it is of a period so close fo the st of the iy, 16 order t© show that he ‘was entirely free from any maliclous disposi- tion toward _thi plaintiff? That is the | Mr. Maguire—We will note an exception, A.—Yes, sir. pus 3 y is well . suggested, | The Court—Exception noted. Q.—After heu'l!l‘ the statements of General the learned counsel on the _other side| Mr. Maguire—Go on, now, Mr. Spreckels, ‘Warfield that you have narrated, and consider- could undoubtedly, had they the pMof at hand, | Mr. Delmas—Q.—Mr. Spreckels, General War- | ing the matter, Mr. Spreckels, did you com- have gone backward as they have gone for- | eld came pursuant to your call and you met in | gider that there Was any necessity for any ward, and proven expressions of ill-will on the part of Mr. Epreckels toward the plaintift, could they not, within a of fifteen days, or & month, or six weeks, or eix months? They could have shown undoubtedly that = Mr. Spreckels had made declarations evincing his hostility, his spite, his desire to injure this man, if he had made them; and ifthose exprés- sions and that conduct could be given for the parpose of showing malice, why mey we not | yoy and the generai? 5% 4 B% Girection the reporter reads the ques- ive "an entirely terent courde. of conduct r. Maguire—That is subjéct to the same ob- 5 n evidence for the purpose of showing that | jection, ruling and exception? A1 aid not; otherwise ome should have N e Th op e T .a8: Q._1f the statemesta of Gen. The Court—The objection i overruled and ex- Mr. Delmas: ~] The Court’s Ruling. The Court—Of course, the defendant will be allowed to introduce any testimony that he has to rebut, to answer any testimony that has been brought forward by the plaintiff con- | cerning subsequent acts, to show malice. The defendant is slso allowed, as I understand the Tule, to testify that at the time of the pub- lication he had no feeling of fll-will, and never had any feeling of ill-will against the person alleged to be libeled. T don't think that he has the right, however, to introduce declara- tions made prior to the time of the publication hat purpose. The objection is sustained. back about it. e Domae e will save the paint. In :::l :'ou-.ld 13 .,:h:.:. “_",,“"“; (By direction, the reporter reads the an- orfer, and without any desire of avoiding " An -vnr.) AR bt Yyour Horor's ruling, but squarely to the | that was the object of the letter as . M 1 move to out the last point, and in conformity with the suggestions | published, or at least his statement m of that answer as not responsive . e el o e Bers s ikt Ghoa & doslinn: | 10 s &4 Tals WEiest The Court—1 think it should g0 out: that is; tion; it is an act. fi—fle told then that the article as pub- sl ve been ' The Court—An finstruction? lished in The wag in every substantial | portion of the answer. Now read the question Mr. Delmas—An instruction; yes, sir. Now, if your Honor's ruling covers that, of course, 1 have no more to say. The Court—Yes, sir; I will allow the ruling the afternoon of the 26th of October, immaterial, The Court—I think it is admissible on this uestion 6f express malice, lAmages. Q. Mz purported letter in the Bulletin? “No.” lease. Mr. l‘ll’mh'l and 1 answer. Mr. Delmas—I will consent to it. the other an- irrelevant and Incompetent. the office of the San Francisco Call? Yes, air. ception noted. A—Well, concerning his “Were the statements as published in The Call untrue?” And he said, in the main, sul stantially, the article is true.” he said, “I had to write this letter 80 ns to secure the release of my If I refused it the Baron He says, particeiar true Article Published Was True. A.—The articie was substantially true. fre—I of to that as leading and | sion, e % and I move mn:trlko 1899, in mitigation of Now kindly staté what took place between I asked the Gemneral aid, But,” is where Q- The tically Mr. Mr. Mr. not_ne The Mr. submission on the 25th of October of last year A.—Om_the 2th of October 1 was on my way n Salinas to San Francisco. rom_‘l that very hour of half-past one? modification or retratcion of the article that had been Mr. trrelevant, immater! O ourt—The obfection is overruled. eral Warfield h: & retraction it would have been made? A —Certainly. Mr. Maguire—Well, If he has stated it, It is Court—I think the objection Is good. out, and the objection is sustained? swer aloud so that there may be no mistake ind answer as it stands. .(%umo- and answer read by the nwrtn’ as Sirectad ) Delmas: Q.—In coming to the conclu- Mr. Dpnfl:-. that there was no neces- were you?® ublished in The Call? Sire—Just a moment. Objected to as et That 1o, the same ducation prac rt— s B that was asked of Mr. Leake. 9 Maguire—Very nearly;* we note an ex- called for a modification or Maguire—I object to that. Delmas—He has stated that. to ak the question again. ire—Then the answer is stricken Court—Yes, sir. Delmas—Now, pleace read me his an- in making either a re- you actuated, toward the Diaintir heres e o malles A.—Yes, sir. The Court—It is included in # e oy i Fou read the article in question for the | it Maguire—Then there Is no meed of it; | Q.—You. have known General Warfield for kg et if it is not, it s improper. how long? . Mr. Delmas—In that same interview, as cor. | A.—Oh, a number of years: I can't say just roborating the statement did General Warfleld | the number of years I have known him; a - : ‘; “Qm. hfm positions of prominence Cure a Cold in One Day | in,thi ; - i Take Lexalive Bromo. Quinine Tablete. An SR e i u.:. < U Erove's Siunatire 1s on eash bos. e o | Gekrs® "o0 PSR & geveral fn the National learned counsel ha: Continyed ot Page Three. very unini ot | Presents for B ‘entlemen g X Neckwear, Silk Pajamas Gloves, Silk Night Robes Mufflers, Handkerchiefs Bath Robes, Dress Suit Cases, Morning Gowns Umbrellas, Canes Smoking Fackets y