The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-02

litcal parasite" and to James Alva Watt
as 1.-THE notorious James Alva Watt"
The defendant, Williams, was. never
mentioned at all, and the casual visitor
hearing the testimony would be forced to
the conclusion that Sheehan, Watt and
Hebbard were the defendant in the case
The courtroom was crowded with de-
positors in the ill ated bark, and their
faces fell when they learned that the gen..
eral had been drawing $500 per month. for
his services, not to speak OF another fat.
salary to Mr.. Watt.
The defense thus far have proved by
preponderance of evidence that Judge
Hebbard promised to allow the directors.
to meet and resign and afterward repudi-
ated and denied his promise.
Mr.. Foote was kept busy the NEST of the
day in Directing to questions as to the
reputation OF James Alva. Watt. '' -
On the opening of court Samuel NJ.
Shortridge took the stand for the purpose
OF making correction of a portion of his
testimony OF the day before. His state
ment was as follows: -.
Mr.. Foote asked me yesterday if had
ever acted as attorney for Mr.. Mcdonald,
aud answered that / never had AT the
time my mind was directed to the subject
matter OF this inquiry. recalled last eve1i-
ing that many years ago l was associated
with Colonel Flournov, since deceased,
and Messrs. Sawyer and Burnett as attor-
ney for Mr.. Mcdonald in q certain divorce
case, some ten or more years ago. | don't
think l appeared as the attorney of record
IN the matter. That was probably before
the organization of the Peoples Home
Savings Bank
d. NJ. Delmas was called to the stand,
and Mr.. Foote protested mildly against
allowing him to testify, because stipula-
ton had been made yesterday that Mr..
. DeImas would testify to the same effecta
did Mr.. Shortridge regarding the pledge
or promise made by Judge He bbard in his
cham bers that he would modify the in
junction, and Judge Hebbard's subse-
quent reputation and denial of that
promise.
Counsel for the defense explained that
on the day before they were not aware
that Mr.. d slmas would be able to attend.
The court allowed Mr.. Delmas to Jestify-
The witness told about the me citing In
Judge Hebbard's cham bers. There were
present on that occasion Judge Hebbard,
Samuel M. Shortridge. Mr.. Mccarthy and
Mr.. Hutton.
1.-THE substance of the conference was
this, continued Mr.. Delmas. sin order
to make 1t Ineligible l shall have to state
that an injunction had been issued by the
Superior Court enjoinlng the board of di-
rectors from meeting and transacting any
corporate business of any kind whatever.
The object OF the interview in Judge Heb
sbard's chambers, as / understood it. was
TO see how far that injunction could be
relaxed so as to permit the board to meet
for the purpose OF resigning and electing
their successors. After that meeting Judge
Hebbard said that he would so far relax
4or modify his order of injunction as to
permit the board to meet and resign and
elect their successors, provided that they
elected board selected by and agreed to
by the committee of depositors of the
bank, that committee being represented,
as / understood it, at that time by Mr.
Mccarthy and whoever else was present
with him at the Time.
II don't remember that any names were
mentioned on that occasion. Judge Heb
bard added the following to his remarks:
i will permit the board 10 meet in my
courtroom which was adjoining his
chambers"
The witness next told about appearing
in court on subsequent occasion for the
purpose of having Judge Hebbard sign an
order for modification of the Injunction.
Mr.. Delmas said:
81 informed the court that in pursuance
of its own suggestions the committee of
depositors had selected board which they
desired to act, and requested the court to
issue an order enabling them to carry out
that purpose. There seemed to be some
Discrimination on the part of the Judge to
do SO, and / reminded the Judge of the
statement made by him in his cham bers,
that there would be modification of the
injunction for that purpose. The Judge
denied that he had ever made such state
ment. | then said that the statement
could be proved by number of persons
VINO were at that very time in the court
room.
Judge Hebbard insisted in maintaining
bis position. that the court had made no
such promise and had entered into no
such bargain or anything of that kind, as
he termed it. Ny recollection is that writ
ten designations had been signed by the
old board and placed in the hands of the
committee ready to be used. On that oc-