The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-01-12
WANTED SOME SECURITY.
SO Pacific Secured Peoples Bank
by Mortgage.
YOUNG McDONALD'S TESTIMONY.
Judge Sanderson Gives Attorney
Baggett Very Hard Time by
Adverse Rulings.


lerday that TO ask L. Il. Mcdonald Jr.
what his and his family's interest was in
the Peoples Home Savings Bank at the
time they made that peculiar deed of mort
gage of the Pacific Banks property was
irrelevant. incOmpetent and immaterial,
and allowed an objection on that score.
The objection was subsequently with
drawn and the question asked and an
Swered.
This occurred during the hearing Of the
suit brought by the Peoples Home Say
ingS Bank to foreclose a mortgage on the
premises of the Pacific Bank and to ap-
point receiver. r. II. Mcdonald Jr. had
been examined on the day before as to
the circumstances under which the alleged
deed OF mortgage was executed, and when
proceedings were resumed yesterday the
cross-examination OF young Mcdonald
was undertaken by Attorneys BaEgett and
Z. +. Dunno.
The eX-vice-president of the Pacific
Bank stated that neither on June %. 1898,
nor at any time previous TO that had the
directors attempted to secure the claims
against the bank of any other creditor
than the Peoples Bank. II such had been
done he had no TecO Election OF ii.
Were you present at the meetings Of
the directors of the Pacific Bank held on
June 10 aud p when resolutions were
| passed."
Il was. of course, present as the vice
president of the bank. But | did not in
Splre any resolution of and in fact L did
not want the bank to go into insolvency.
As matter OF fact the bank was not in
solvent then, and 1t isn't insolYent now"
What interest had you, your father-and
brother in the Peoples Home Savings
Bank at the time the disputed deed was
executed E" asked Baggetl.
Frank NJ. Stone objected to the question
| as not competent crOss-examination, and
the judge said something about wasting
time. Baggett insisted that he had right
TO ask the question, 10 show that the Nc
Donald family, seeing that the Pacific
Bank was on the verge of a SIN sh. pro-
| ected their own Interests in the Peoples
Bank at the eleventh hour by a deed Of
! transfer. If" said Mr.. Baggett, Il can
| prove this, then this will be very material
! if not conclusive evidence of the fraud
which is charged in the complaint"
Judge SandersOn simply shook his head
and disallowed the question. After a
brief consultation among his associate
counsel, however, Mr.. Stone withdrew his
objection ana the question was repeated.
The answer was that the Mcdonald family
held 1900 shares out Of the 10000 share,
composing the capital stock of the Peoples
Bank. The corporation held 81, $50
shares and the remainder were divided
among eighty stockholders TO a small ex-
tent.
Holding this interest in the Peoples
Bank We were naturally anxious TO protect
the bank, and another reason for the act
was the continued demand of the bank for
security for its loans and the demand
of the Bank Commissioners that we make
good any debt of the Pacific Bank" said
Mcdonald.
IL. a.
terest held ley your family and yourself IN
the Pacific Bank at the timeY asked
Stone in redirect examination.
I'VE held 5000 out OF the 10000 shares.
The 5000 shares were estimated a $780, 600,
while the 1900 shares OF the PEG les Bank
stock were only valued at $4,000. So
you see by the happening OF any calamity
TO the Pacific Bank we would be out some
5000, 0OO"
You say Mr.. Farnum repeatedly de-
manded security for the lOans?
Yes; frequently"
And the Bank Commissioners also? 2"
''Oh, myl they were demanding it all
the time. We had no peace"
Now, did not Frank V. Mcdonald go
TO the Office of Messrs. Dorm and ask for
blank form Of mOrtgage?"
Yes, and he couldn't get one. So he
had to draw the mortgage deed on ordinary
paper"
After some discussion concerning coun-
sci fees Frank NJ. Stone addressed the
court on behalf OF the plaintiff. He said
that the deed in question was a bona-fide
mortgage and executed as such. and he
asked the court to grant the PEOPLES
Banks petition TO foreclose
p. +. Dunno opposed this request in
vigorous Grafton. His argument went TO
show that the deed in question was not
buDa-fde mortgage, but deed of trans fert
and he remarked very strongly the fact,
that no form of mortgage was used such as
could have been procured at any law sta
toners. Dunno was followed by Bagget
who endeavered to show that ii the dncu-
ment in question were really a deed of
transfer as such it would be invalid and
void. Finally the case was submitted on
briefs.