The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-06-09

Iiden, Andrew Whsle, w. X. Vanderslce, c.
NJ. Plum, w. NJ. Cutlery. l.. Wadham. GEORGE
c. HickoX Scion Pat;ee. John f. Pope, n.
Ames. William G. Badger. JOHN NJ.
Curtis, John +. Kennedy, j. NJ. LitchfelG
W W: MONTAGUE, Robert Bragg, Washington
aver, Henry J.. Davis, James f. Logan, John
Curry, ID. A. Macdonald, James ID. Phelan. +.
+. Smith. +. S. Bass. Aaron DOud. A. 2. Brown.
stewart MenZes. John &. Conrad. G. S Bene-
diet, r +. Bunker, John o Doane, +. ". Mar.
vim. L. s. Camp, eDdel Esst0n. MendeI Es-
berg. George w. gibbs, Monroe Greenwood,
LeylSirauss, NJ. Heller. d. l. Randolph, Sam
Murphy. a. J. Ralston. w. p. Fuller, Adam
Grant. L. b. Pond, g. d. Toy, William Croeker.
S SsEgs Mo% Wick Ok " 80 2se f. : Pnid
Count. F. James, B. Jackson. w. w Haskell
A. c. Deitz +. Il. LilIenl hal, II. T. Lally, H. T.
Bush. j. j. McKinnon, j. X. Orr. Z. Z. Ames.
Knowles. c. q. Stone. j. f. Myers. f. Bosqui,
{. ;. Launeister, A. j. Lewis, J. L. ShOobert,
6. Wtckson, q. AmmeruD. E. l.; Hueter J. II.
A. Folkers, =. Mclean. ". II. Healy, n. 2.
Cole, C. Q. Richards, James Denman. j. +.
Burke, }. T. jackson. l.. r. EllerI. j. j. Nc
Dade, Henry Michaeis, George Whttell, r. f.
Durham. p f. DundoD. II. j. SummerhayeS,
:. j. Hendv, Samuel Blair, b. f. Lacy, w. Il.
Dimond, w. S. Carr j. Z. Bigelow, ". l.. Gers
Tie, Leroy G. Harvey. Timothy Hopkins. j. L.
RaIhbone, }. L. Wright. Z. Paige, +. c. SEES
stems, Isaac TrumbO p. II. JacksoD, Thomas
Jennings, L. Emanuel.
In conclusion, the atlantis stated that
they desired to retire from their Offices
without injury to either depositors or
stock oldeTs.
Mr.. Watt suggested that the idea was
feasible one. Suppose the whole $50 names
were put in the jury-bOX and the first SIX
names drawn?
I'VE agree" said Highton.
Hutton objected that some persons on
that list were sither directly or indirec ly
interested in the hanks affairs
Understand me. gentlemen" said
Judge Hebbard, Il shall allow no personal
interest to be subserved in this case"
Watt then suggested that IS each name
was drawn from the box its owner might
be subjected to examination upon these
points.
1--WE agree" said Hightou.
5. NJ. ShOTtTidge then announced that
when the proper time came he would have
something to say in the matter on behalf
Of the defendant banking corporation.
Hutton was heard 20 say that he failed
TO see where ShOrtridge came in at all.
The present matter under discussion con-
cerned the bank directors only. Did
ShortTldge represent any of them?
Shortridge said that he represented
Schultz, Keeney and Mcdonald, but he
had no authority from them as yet to agree
to any proposed scheme. He would give
definite information on this point by Mon
day next.
The Judge at this point announced that
he would hear arguments on the motion
forthwith, and Hizhton rose on behalf of
Graves and Jenkins. He said that his pro-
posal was very simple one.
I'VE are here under Indictment" he
said, land under the circumstances it is
not right tnat we should continue to man.
age the affairs of the bank or remain in
office. Nothing can be said or suggested
to which we will not agree. All we saw is
Let us get out. We have had enough of
il. We have to meet both criminal and
civil charges, so let us be free to do so.
Let us get out!"
With regard to the petition for the re-
moval of the receiver Mr.. Highton claimed
that the Supreme Court has held that
where an action of this kind was brought
by the Attorney General the only ORDER
that the court could make was an order TO
show cause. Until that was done no in
junction could issue, no receiver could he
appointed. the business of the bank could
not be stopped.
in conclusion Mr.. Highton demurred to
the complaint. on The ground that the
directors could not be made rarlies to the
action. In reply 10 the demnrrers Altar
ney-General Hart said that the complaint
in the present action was even stronger
than that in the Pacific Bark ease, wherein
the Supreme Court had held that The coin
plant stated sufficient cause of action. AS
to the making Of the directors parties to
the action a recent Iowa decision provided
for that. The Attorney General left the
issue in the hands of the court.
Mr.. Shorirdge said that personally he
did not object 10 The proposed scheme. but
he did not know what Schultz, Keenev and
Mcdonald might say 10 il. In any case.
he thought that Inc jury-box idea was moi
the right one, but savored too much OF
chance. No court had q right to dictate In
pa. Tar a A.
The directors might retire IL must surely
be conced9d that they had a right to ar
point their successors
Watt announced that he had something
to say, and Hutton looked AS if he wanted
to speak. Jadge Hebbbrd, however. de-
cided TO hear no further arguments for the
present, and continued the matter until
2 P. NJ. on Monday next All The matters