The San Francisco call., 1896-06-26
WHY He VOTED TO
GUST FL0URNOY.
Ex.Director Thornton Gives
His Various Rea-
sons.
CONSIDERED INCAPABLE
Flournoy Said to Have Made
Himself Personally Oh.
noxious."
LOOSE METHODS ARE DISCLOSED
Expenses of Trips by Bank Officers
for Which No Vouchers
Were Kept.
LOOSE METHODS ARE DISCLOSED

The testimony of ex-Director Thornton
of the Peoples Bank was the interesting
feature of yesterdays session in the trial
of the Safe Deposit Company against the
officers of the bank. Thornton is by pro-
fession commercial traveller, but would
seem to have considerable knowledge of
what constitutes legal ability, for he was
willing to base his endeavors to remove
Attorney Flournoy as attorney of the
bank merely upon his opinion that Flour
noy was incompetent.
Then there were other reasons. Flour
noy had made himself personally obnoxi-
ous' to Thornton and that was the last
straw. Thornton denied that he had
voted to oust Flournoy to avoid calling in
the unpaid capital stock, although it was
common talk at the time that such was
the case. AS one of the stockholders the
payment of the unpaid stock would be
against Thornton's interests, but that did
not cut any figure, he claimed.
M. II. Grossmeyer testified that in Janu-
ary, 1894, he had demanded of General
Sheehan certain information about the
meetings of the directors and that the gen.
eral had refused, saying that he would not
give information for Grossmeyer to use
against his management of the bank. The
witness had made the request upon Shee-
han at the instance of himself, the stock
holders and to some extent the Safe De-
posit Company.
General Sheehan was recalled to testify
in regard to his expenses on his trip south
in the fall of 1894 to examine the banks
property. The expense of the trip, $186 90,
represented railroad fare, hotel bills and
buggy hire. He did not have any vouch-
ers for the various items and, SO far as he
remembered, did not make any itemized
account of his expenses upon his return.
Similar trips made by himself, General
Thornton and colonel Stone were also in
quired into.
1. L. Merrill testified that he also had
made demand upon General Sheehan in
January. 1895, for an itemiZed account of
the generals expenses on his various trips
but had failed to get it.
General Sheehan was questioned in
regard to the attorneys fees paid out by
| him. From May 1, 1894, to January Ia,
| 1885, he had paid out in the neighborhood
OF $500, which he believed was reasonable.
During that time he bad also paid $3339 so
to employees. During this period the
depositors had not received any money
| from the bank. Sheehan declared that
the employees kept by the bank during
that time were absolutely needed. He
had employed tnem, he said, upon the
order OF the Bank Commissioners, but he
| had no written order from them TO that
effect. All amounts he had paid out he
honestly believed to be just During all
| the time he had been at the head of the
bank he had never done anything with
intent to further his own interests as
against those of the banks creditors.
! AT the opening of the afternoon session
Attorney General Fitzgerald was put on
the stand. The Bank Commissioners re-
ported to him the failure of the directors
of the Peoples Bank to comply with the
order to call in the capital stock and he
was requested to take steps in the matter.
| The directors, he said, could have been
proceeded against either civilly or crimi-
naly. He advised the Bank Commission
ers to order the stock to be called in.
This advice had been given at the sugges-
| ton of Attorney Bartnett and the Attor-
ney- General thought it the best course be-
cause it would not require any court pro-
ceedings. A protracted argument here
ensued between the opposing counsel rela-
| tive to the admission of the following let
ter from Bank Commissioner Magee to the
Attorney General, which Judge Seawell
finally refused to admit: