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

at any opinion that Mr. Watt was no. \
torious characterP" was asked.
Mr.. Foote objected.
"How could l prove" asked Mr.. Henley
of the court, 'that Claude Duval was a
notorious person without inqulring from.
somebody? l don't wish, of course. to
institute any disparaging comparison be-
tween Claude Duval and Mr.. Watt"
added Mr.. Henley; bowlng politely in the
direction of Mr.. Watt, who was sitting be.
side his friend. Judge Hebbard. There
are notorious persons in this City who.
have never been convicted of any crime"
The court thought that the question
called for the opinion of the witness, and
was not therefore admissible.
Mr.. Henley argued that James Alva
Watt defeated the proposed reorganiza-
ton because heswas afraid that he would
lose his job. Here is an institution" con-
tinued Mr.. Henley, lin which tens of
thousands of men, women and children
in this City are interested, and which has
fallen into the hands Of men who are not
satisfactory to the depositors. Judge
Hebbard promised that he would allow
them to reorganize the board OF directors,
and the next day the Judge denied his
| promise. In view of these facts can we
not show James Ava Watts intimacy
with Judge Hebbard, and the fact that
Watt interviewed parties who were
named for the new board as to their
opinions on certain matters connected
with the management of the bank, and
cannot we argue to the jury why it was
that Judge HebbaTd repudiated and de-
MED that promise? Why was it unlsss
something occult and sinister existed?
ut was Watt whose fat job was in
| danger by the displacement OF the old
| board and the installment of the new. We
want to show, as illustrating the intimacy
hat ft<co st
| Sacramento and made a nomin ating
| speech in behalf of Judge Hebbard."
Mr.. Foote objected. He saio that he
didn't want to have pol tics mixed up in
the matter.
Mr.. Henley-I intend to prove in this
case that Judge Hebbard-
II object" shouted Mr. Foote.
1.-THE record shows the making of the
promise by Judge Hebbard," continued
Mr.. Henley, "and his subsequent repudia-
| ton of that promise. 1t shows also the
meeting of S. M. Shortridge, James Alya
! Watt and Judge Hebbard III the rooms of
the Union League Club, and the fact that
Mr.. Shortridge showed the names of the
proposed new directors to Mr.. Watt. The
intimacy OF these two, Judge Hebbard and
James Alva Watt, is pertinent to the issue
We are ready to prove that this proposed
| reorganization was not satisfactory to Mr..
Wait"
The court sustained Mr.. Foote'S obiec-
ton and took recess until 2 P. NJ
After recess e. ]. l. vernash, attorney.
at-law, testified as to Mr. DeImas remind
ing Judge Hebbard of his promise and
judge Hebbard's denial of the same. He
was asked concerning a conversation had
by him with General Sheehan, with refer.
ence TO some stock of the bank owned by
Live rnasil and Mr.. Foote'S usual obiec-
ton 10 something interesting was put for
ward.
Mr.. Henley said that he proposed to
prove that Watt and Sheehan were con-
federates and acting together.
The objection was sustained and Mr..
Livernash carried away the secret in his
breast.
t. Carl Spelling, an attor ney. was mt
on the stand and when the first question
was asked him by Mr.. Henley in which
Judge Hebbard was referred to as 1.-THE
prosecutor" Mr.. Foots raised another OBJ
lection and demanded that the judge
should be mentioned as the prosecuting
witness. Mr.. Thornton of counsel for the
defense read a section of the Penal Code
to show that the words accomplishments .
'lnformer, and prosecutor" were used
synonomously.
Mr.. Spelling narrated what had hap
pened in Judge Hebbard's chambers one