The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-10-12
THE MOTION Was DENIED
A Judge Who VIII Not Gloss
Liability.
The Motion for New Trial in the Celebrated
Hale & Norcross Case Refused by
Judge Hebbard.

Judge Hebbard yesterday denied mo-
tlon for n new trial in the famous case of
NJ. w. Fox VS.. the Hale & Norcross Silver
Mining Company ct al. In his opinion the
court states its position as regards the de-
PENDANTS very clearly.
The Judge says regarding Charles S.
Wheeler. one Of the defendants: Il wish
that my judgment might allow me to grant
to him as well as TO all the defendant direc-
tors, except one. who are similarly situated.
the advantage of a new trial. wish that
upon the first con sideraton of this case and
consistent with my IDEAS OF law and duty
could have absolved these defendants from
all RESPONSE bility.
1.-TWO of these defendant directors know
personally; all of them / know by reputa-
ton, and beyond their relations to and con-
nection with the grave charges made and
proved in this case l know nothing TO their
disadvantage.
with the single exception OF III. Nj, Levy,
/ do not believe that any one of these dlrec-
tors ever received dollars worth in value
OF the property diverted from the company;
| With the single exception of Mr.. Levy, i
believe they would have scOrned division
OF the spoils OF the conspiracy In any
| amount whatever.
But" continues the court, II am thor
| oughy satisfied that these same directors,
! by their gross carelessness and negligence,
| by the violation OF the trust reposed In them
/ by the stockholders of the company, and by
! the violation OF the duty imposed upon them
| by law. allowed and permitted the other de-.
/ PENDANTS to misappropriate the property Oh
the corporation.
But II am wrong In this Interpretation
| OF the law as to the liability of directors In
| such case-lf it be that directors. trustees
OF large corporations, may lend their good
names and fair fame to the use and purpose
Of men who design aud carry out thereby
the despollation OF their cestui que trust,
II, by their ignorance and negligence, they
may vote to levy unconscionable assess
ments and to ratify and confirm the dis
| honest contracts OF cOnspiriDg employees
and their plundering confederates, whereby
the st0ckh holders In their corporations
are led or driven like sheep TO financial eil-
barrassment and ruin, and not be held liable
for resulting damages-then it is high time
that the law Of corporations In regard to the
duties OF directors therein were changed III
this most material respect
1T is my judgment that the decision In
this case is just and legal. The motion ioi
new trial is therefore deEied."
On the 10Th day of last May Judge Heb
bard rendered judgment In favor OF nj
W. Fox and against Alvinza Hayward. W
). Hobart. the Nevada Mill and MINING
Company and ii. M. Levy for S1,011,S5
each. and against directors of the Hale
Norcross Company as follows: c. I. Bridge
w. Il. Sell and Joseph w. Souther, S12.O4
each; w. c. Watson. S115,775; Charles
Egan, A. X. +. Harmon, Joseph Marks an.
Charles 5. Wheeler. s210.1 72 80 each; u
ID. Holmes. S69,e05; j. ID. Low. $50, 457 Of
The case was stubbornly contested ant
closely watched by the community. espe
cially the large portion interested Il
mining.