The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-04
4 STRANGE EXPLANATION
MADE BY JUDGE HEBBARD
he Appointed Receiver Knowing That the Supreme
- Court Had Decided That Such Appointments
Were Illegal and Void.

the appointment of a receiver in a SAVINGS
bank was unlawfui2'
The crowd of depositors in the court
room craned their necks forward to hear
what the witness had to say to that direct
question.
yes" replied the witness, carelessly.
that was when | heard of the opinion
orally. 1t was sixteen days after the re-
mittitur came down that made that APP
pointment.
What judicial opinion induced you to
appoint a receiver after the Supreme Court
had decided that the appointment of a
receiver IN similar case was unlawful"
was asked.
Judge Hebbard, by way of explaining
ms answer, which seemed to need con
siderable explanation, read from the opin-
ion of the Supreme Court in volume
LOB OF the California Reports 1t
was an equity case, he said 'and reading
between the lines he had concluded that
this was an equity case, such as the court,
in its opinion of June IL, had referred to,
and he believed that he was warranted in
appointing receiver in that case, in or
der that the assets might be kept intact
until the bank got into the hands of the
directors to put IL into liquidation.
In response 10 a question as to whether
or not the witness considered E. ii. knight
and Nathan Goldtree as private persons,
the witness replied that he considered
them as stockholders.
Now, Judge Hebbard," inquired Mr..
Thornton, sharply, "do you know of any
decision by the Supreme Court since 1852
up to the present time in which a receiver
in banking corporation could ever be
appointed p
Mr.. Foote saved his client again by
timely objection.
Mr.. Thornton argued that the witness
had said tnat there were conflicting opin-
1ons-"some one way and some another"
The witness said that the lang lage of
the decision in the one hundred and third
California indicated to his mind that in an
equity action by a stakeholder against this
bank the appointment of q receiver would
be warranted.
"You considered the then situation of
the bank Justification for making this
appointment notwithstanding the de-
cision?' asked Mr.. Thornton.
Il took the decision into consideration
also, was the reply.
''Will you please explain how receiver
In both cases can take possession Of the
property and assets of the defendant at
the same timer"
Yes; there might be three cases in
one of which a receives might be dis
charged and he might continue to be the
receiver in the other cases.
Judge Hebbard was asked next as to
whether General Sheehan had made any
statement TO the court OF his receipts and
expenditures as receiver, and he replied
that the only thing he remem bered was a
resolution by the board OF directors that
they were satisfied with his report. The
receiver thereupon asked to be discharged,
and when the witness saw the directors
receipt in General Sheehan's hands he
granted the discharge.
Dir. Spelling, on behalf of certain par
ties, objected to the discharge of Sheehan,
b.,f bor wa en- a To fh a oh
lection that the witness could not remem-
Der them all.
The witness made an eyasive answer to
the question as to whether he thought
that the attorney for the receiver should be
the attorney for the bank also by saying
that if he thought SO then he thought SO
now.
The facts of his intimacy with General
Sheehan and the extent of that intimacy
were next inquired into. Judge Hebbard
said that he became acquainted with
General Sheehan when he joined the
Union League Club in 1889 or 1890. He
knew that General Sheehan was a son-in-
law of Judge Wallace, a friend of his. and
that he was Register of the Land Office,
and because he believed that the general
would make a good official he appointed
him as one of the Commissioners in the
case of Emeric against Alvarado. The
extent of his intimacy with the general
was to take drink with him at the Union
League Club or play game of pedro
with him. Sheehan got $11, 600 out of the
Emeric- Alvarado case.
ssDid you know as a fact that Sheehan
was or had been for some time secretary
of the Yosemite Commissioners"
eyes"
HDid the fact that he was secretary at
that time influence you in your action in
appointing him as receiver, or did the
fast that be was Register of the United
States Land Office influence you at all?"
Not at all"
Did the fact that he was also secretary
and manager of the defendant influence
your"
stThat made no difference to me at all.
/ regarded him as proper person."
tYou thought then that it was entirely
Just and proper to appoint as receiver of
the corporation the secretary and mana
ger2"
"In this case, yes; but he was not secre-
tary and manager then. l sometimes act
would have done. because the facts wer-
not as you have stated" replied Judge
Hebbard.
The witness told of visit to the Bush
street Tbeater shortly before election day,
on which occasion the depositors were in
session. He occupied a box for several
minutes. but was practically driven out
main any longer. At that meeting they
accused MIN OF every crime from misde-
meanor to lie ony. Mr.. Pike, for instance,
had called him liar, thief and MUIR
derer.
Whom did you ever kill2'' inquired
Mr.. Thornton with an air of interest.
The witness did not remember of ever
having killed anybody. He added:
when / came in Pike changed his tune
and said, Judge Hebbard, you and | were
enemies, but you have not been treated as
an American citizen here, and now | am
your friend
In reply to further questions Judge Heb
bard said that be was Presiding Judge at
the time these bank proceedings were be-
gun and he had assigned the cases to him.
self He admitted that be was the NOV
ing spirit in the matter of obtaining an
Indictment against the defendant Will
liams for libel, but be did not appear be-
fore the Grand Jury except in the Mar
riott case. Mr.. Kahn had drawn up the
papers and he had not received any re-
tainer for il.
$50 say we all of u.s." said Mr.. Foote
with sigh, whereupon even the afflicted
depositors laughed.
Tamyor Hinton was the npxt witness