The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-03

made to him by the board OF directors.
He asked the witness whether Watt on
June 5. 1894, had received $500. The wit
ness consulted the cashbook, and replied
that such was the fact. He also found an
entry of 5000 paid TO Watt on June 25, and
day or TWO afterwaru $500. There was
another payment of $500 as legal expenses,
and on July 25 $500 for attorneys fees.
Various other entries were read, the whole
amounting to $4,000, as Mr.. Thornton de-
clared, before the directors had made Watt
any allowance whatever.
These revelations were listened to with
great interest by the depositors, who
crowded the courtroom.
General Sheehan was asked whether he
was an intimate friend of Judge Heb
bard, and he replied that he was and had
known him for about SIX years. They
were both members of the Union League
Club and the San Francisco Press Club.
Daniel T. Cole and Colonel d. M. Burns
were the bondsmen of the witness as re-
ceiver of the bank and also as secretary
and manager.
did you ever attend political conven-
ton at Sacramento fol-. the purpose OF
furthering the political aspirations OF
Judge Hebbard?" asked Mr.. Thornton.
II did. That was one of my objects in
attending that convention" replied the
general. He added that James Alva Watt
ing after the official aspirations of Judge
Hebbard. He did not remember whether
Judge .Hebbard's name was placed in
nomination at the convention in 1894 or
not.
On the cross-examination Mr.. Foote
asked the witness whether he had had
an ything to do with the sale OF 3440 shares
OF stock to William Jenningson or the ac-
ceptance of the note in payment thereof,
and the witness replied that he had not.
Abraham d. Frace, clerk out of en-
ployment and depositor in the People S
Home Savings Bank, was called to the
stand and was asked as to his knowledge
of the reputation of James Apva Wat.
He said that he had heard Mr.. Watt s
character discussed in public meetings OF
the depositors. The criticisms on Mr..
Watt by the depositors at meetings in
B'nai Birth Hall and elsewhere were of a
very uncom ELEMENTARY and disparaging
character. These meetings were held after
the failure of the bank and before October
16, the date of the publication of the al
legged llbeIous circular. He had also seen
condemnatory publications in the news
papers concerning Watt and his conduct
In the management of the bank.
Mr.. Fuote announced that he would adj
nit that the remaining witnesses, Messrs.
Foster, Pascoe, Bobst and Morcum, would
testify with regard to the meetings of the
depositors and to their speeches condem-
natory OF James Ava Watt in the same
manner as Mr.. Mccarthy and Mr.. Frace.
He would consider that those two facts
had been esta blished.
Asse bly, man George w. Dixon was
called after the noon recess and narrated
how he mad been asked by DR.. Frederick
w. Harris to serve as director of the
bank. The witness was asked by George
w. Baker of counsel for the defense
whether James Alva Watt had requested
him to serve as a director. Mr.. Foote
promptly objected, and Mr.. Baker an
nounced that he desired to prove that
Watt had SO manipulated matters as to
get his friends on the board OF directors OF
the bank so that he could be the attorney
for the bank, as charged in the alleged
libelous publication.
julius Kahn of counsel for the prosecu-
ton replied to Mr.. Baker, and remarked
that the court had ruled several times on
the subject of the relevancy OF the testi-
mony offered.
Mr. Baker argued that the circular did
not charge that Judge Hepbard had knowl-
edge of the character and acts oil Mr.
Watt, and he had right to prove the
truth of the alleged libel. The clrcum-
stances Of this case presumed that Judg re
Hebbard had full knowledge of what was
done. H, considered that the allegation
that Judge Hebbard was an unfair Judge
was entirely predieated on the truth of
what followed. and it was for the jury to
say whether or not they had proved the
allegations on which the first allegation
was predicated.
Mr.. Foote argued that any action of Mr..
Watt, without the knowledge Of Judge
Hebbard, would not bind or be reflection
upon the Judge. He therefore objected to
the testimony.
Mr.. Baker claimed the right to prove
every portion of the circular alleged to be
oefamatory.
Mr.. Henley argued that there was NO
charge that Judge Hebbard had knowledge
of the acts or character o.. Watt and Shee-