The morning call., 1894-07-14
Delmas and Shortridge Retired
in His Favor.
HE MOTION STRONGLY OPPOSED.
Mr.. DeImas Wakes Indignant and a
WOrdy Warfare Takes Place
Between attorneys.

6, Judge Hebbard yesterday granted the
application OF James Alva Watt to be SUBJ
slituted as the banks attorney 10 suits now
pending and Instituted by and against the
bank in place of the attorneys appointed
by the old board Of directors.
The resolution referred to. which has
effected such a radical change in the ad-
mtnistration of the banks affairs, was
adopted at one of the very first meetings of
the new board of directors held after
their election to Office. 1t reads as follows {:
Resolved, That all resolutions heretofore
adopted and all contracts heretofore entered
into employing Messrs. Delmas and ShOrtridge
and l.. E Phil ps, or either Of them, as attor-
neys for the bank be and they are hereby
resc inded.
Rescued, That Messrs. Delmas and Short
ridge be requested 10 substitute James Alva
Watt. The regularly appointed attorney Of the
bank, in all litigation in which they now appear
attor eys for The bank or represent its inter
ests.
Resolved, That the manager and secretary
transmit copy of these resolutions 10 Messrs.
Delmas and ShOrtrid &c and l.. i. Phillips.
1t appeared by subsequent proceedings
that copy Of these resolutions was trans
mitted to the attorneys mentioned, but
both Delmas and Shorlridge refused to ac-
knowledge abide by it. On that account
a formal notice of motion for substitution
of attorneys was drawn up by Watt and
served upon the old attorneys. The mo-
tion was for the substitution of James
Alva Watt as attorney for the People 5
Home Bank in the following actions now
pending Def ore the court: Peoples Home
Savings Bank VS.. NJ. H. Sherman, Peo-
i ! I
Consolidated Railroad Company, People
vs.. PEOPLES Home Savings Bank, GOldtree
VS.. Peoples Home Savings Bank, h un-
saker VS.. PEOPLES Home Savings Bank, L.
II. Knight vs.. Peoples Home Savings
Bank, y. Il. Higgins vs.. Peoples Home
Savings Bank, WOlc0tt VS.. Peoples Bank.
Dsv ct al VS.. Peoples Bank.
The motion came up for hearing yester
day, and the various attorneys interested
were present in court In presenting his
motion, Mr.. Watt read the resolution of
the new board of directors, together with
an affidavit drawn up and sworn to by
John +. Sheehan, secretary and manager
of the bank under the new administration.
The affidavit set forth the refusal OF
Messrs. Delmas and Shortridge 10 ae-
knowledge the action of the directors, aud
requested the court to formally grant sub
sututiun of attorneys.
Mr.. Delmas in person vigorously op-
posed the motion. He urged 10 the court
that here were several reasons why MIR.
Watt should not receive the appointment.
To begin with, II seemed established be-
yond a doubt that Watt was the legal
representative of at least three different
parties. He was attorney for John f.
Sheehan, the receiver in possession; 1t
was to be strongly supposed that he also
represented S,OckhOdpr GOldtTee in his
suit against the bank. In a word. Mr.. Del
mas charged that Attorneys burst, Dun
and and Spelling were but fgureheads in
these matters, and that the prime mover
ana wire-puller in all these matters was
the attorney who now sought 10 represent
the corporation itself
Mr.. Watt denied IN toto all that MIR. Del
mas had urged. He said that he IN no way
represented GOldtree in his suit against
the bank. MI Spelling, who drew up the
complaint, was in court and could speak
for himself in this matter.
Mr.. Spelling was heard to say that he
alone represented GOldtree in this particu-
lar suit. and that Watt had nothing what
euer 10 do with it.
Mr.. Deimas then made the further objec-
ton that the election Of the present board
of directors, from whom Watt received his
appointment, was open to grave question.
Mr.. Deimas claimed that the new directors
had been elected through the voting of the
DR.. JenningsOn shares in their favor.
Now he expected to show that this stock
ought not TO have been voted, as being
under injunction. 1t would be shown that
DR.. JenningsUn received this stock from
Dick Mcdonald on his prOmissoTy note
and this note had never been paid. Jen-
ningson himself was out of the State, but
if it were POSSIBLE to bring him back that
course might be adopted. AT he meeting
of the stockholders when the Old directors
were ousted and a new board elected the
JenningsOn shares were voted by Mrs.
-
necessarily invalidate the election. MIR.
Delmas claimed.
Matters began to assume hostile
shape. Watt turned around and denied
Mr.. Delmas' assertions, claiming that two
thirds of the bank stock was voted against
the old directors without counting the
Jennlngs0n shares. For the matter of
that, at the meeting where the old board
of directors were elected, from whom
Messrs. Delmas and Shortridge received
their appointment, the Jenningson shares
were duly voted. If one election was void
so was the other.
Mr.. Delmas was beginning to look con-
siderably annoyed. lie moved for con-
tinuance of the motion for substitution of
attorneys.
He wished time to prepare certain
affidavits In support of his objections to
the appointment of Watt He also
wished o contradict certain rumors which
Udu RdID6u SIUuuu BIlDSbiI,
1t was said that the Swanberg securities
had been removed from the bank by his
advice He wished TO dispr0ve that.
Attorney Watt retoTted that so he had
been Informed. He understood that this
statement was the Dasis OF the defense to be
made by eX-Directors Montgomery, Graves,
jenkins and Mcdonald to the charges
upon which they were under indictment.
The fact that Mr.. DelmaS was believed to
have given such advice was astrong reason
why be should not remain one OF the banks
attorneys.
Mr.. Delmas Indignantly denied that this
was true.
Mr.. Watt retorted that he would gladly
furnish the name of his informant. 1t was
ex-Director Charles Montgomery.
Matters began 20 look serious now and
ii seemed as hough wordy warfare were
imminent when Judge Hebbard came TO
the rescue. He said that a number of
matters brought in by Mr.. Delmas had
nothing whatever to do with the question
at issue and further discussion was useless
Finally Judge Hebbard denied Mr.. Del
mas motion for a continuance and granted
the motion tor substitution of attorneys
A formal order was made directing that
James Alva Watt be substituted as attor-
ney for the Peoples Bank in all matters
now pending before the court, vice Messrs.
Delmas and Shrrtridge and l.. +. Phillips.
In the case OF the People OF he
State of California vs.. the Peoples
Home Savings Bank ct al, Judge Heb.
defendant eX-6irecors, leaving The cOpoT-
alton itself the sole defendant 10 the
action. The demurrer OF the defendant