The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-04
Evidence in the Williams Libel
Case Showing How the Bank
3. ..::. !. Was Looted.
FRIEND WATT WAS FAVORED.
Peculiar Admissions by the Judge
$: That He Sometimes Acted Off.
cially From Impulse.


infinite personal friend of General
Sheehan and James Alva Watt; that he
was a friend. of Judge Wallace, the gen
erals father.in-law; that he appointed
General Sheehan at time when he was
N fun personal and judicial knowledge of
tthesfact that the Supreme Court had de-
laded it to be unlawful to appoint a re-
'csiver for a savings bank; that it did not
make any difference 10 him whether the
general occupied other offices of fat
salaries at the time or not, and that he
sometimes performed his judicial func-
lions from impulse.
1t came out in the evidence that the
bank was indebted to Delmas & Short
ridge a balance of $500 under their con-
tract for legal services, which sum the
firm never drew.
On the whole, the prosecution made a
very sorry showing of their end of the
case, all their efforts having only estab-
lished The fact in the minds of the spec
tators that under the management of the
Sbeehan-Watt crowd the bank was looted
undar'the gulse of fees and expenses.
Judge Hebbard proceeded with his
statement on the opening of court in the
morning: He considered the appointment
q OF tie receiver in the knight and Cola
tree cases as ga kind of double barreled
pfeeaution" to protect the funds of the
bank He appointed the same man re-
ceiyer in three cases because he wanted to
keePthe remainder OF the funds of the
bankintact.
a.. few days before the 18th of June
the. witness called upon Chief Justice
Reatty'of. the Supreme Court and TOLD
'htm:that whatever he, Hebbard, might do
IN the matter he would do without any
Intention OF committing contempt of
g court. Justices Van VIeet and Garoutte
were also present at tie interview, and
Justice Beatty told Judge Hebbard to do
90 what;4e thought best; that the Supreme
% Court would not think that any contempt
Twas intended by him.
.. aAt this point Mr.. Foote introduced in
evidence deter dated January 25. 1895
=. addressed to Judge Hebbard from Thomas
" s. Villa FMS Jr. in which Williams asked
'athe Judge to use his influence with dShee-
han and. Watt to have the depositors
represented 'on the board of directors. The
witness explained that Williams and
C3artnett. came to his chambers the next
day ana repeated the request made in the
leIIer. Judge Hebbard in response of
fered to go. down town and endeavor to
get the depositors representation of four
of the seven directors, and if not he would
get them a re presentation of three at least.
He also told Mr.. Williams that as he
seemed to be anxious to get on the board
the witness would try to secure his APP
pointment, but that there would be some
difficulty in doing so because the gentle
men connected with the bank did not like
Williams. The Judge added to Williams
IN that conversation:
'''Some of your people believe that have
been unfair and against their interest in
the bank. All / ask of you is to go among
those people and do what you can to dis
abuse their minds of those ideas. He said
that he would do so. | went downtown
to- tha Bank Com missionerS, to Mr..
Watt and.to General Sheehan and Judge
Sawyer, and everybody knew who had
amy influence with the stockholders, and
3 secuted the appointment of three men.
Mr.; Williams being one.
1.-The attention of the witness was called
10 q letter of December 4, addressed b v
,iim. to Sheehan, requesting the general
o to- allow the representatives of the Cali
=. fernfa'. Sale Deposit and Trust Company
TO inspect the books of the bank without
s:obliging Judge Hebbard 10 make formal
order to that effect. The letter was iden-
tilted by the witness.
in response to questions by Mr.. Thorn
ton the.witness sari that he made the ac-
ohafntance Of James Alva Watt in 1879
when he. and Watt we're studying law to-
gether.' The Judge was then brought
j.. down to the appointment of Watt as at
torney for Receiver Sheehan. On the LIST
OF May he mad a talk with Sheehan and
the latter asked the witness whether be
had any particular choice of attorney and
the witness SAID that he had not.
''Whoever will be satisfactory to you
= will be satisfactory to me" said Hebbard.
&c. General Sneehan mentioned Mr.. Watt
that afternoon and the witness said that
smart and the Judge thought that he was
an honest man.
II said" continued the witness, "that l
was not sure that l would ever be able to
allow him any com pensation, because 6his
banking act had never been considered,
and | didn't know what the Supreme
Court OF this State would say with refer
ence to the receiver appointed under that
act"
WAS it not the fact" asked Mr. Thorn
ton, that it was within your knowledge
as a lawyer and Judge that 1t was nn-
lawful, and had been SO decided by the
Supreme Court, to appoint receiver for
q savings bank?"
at was a new application of the law of
receivershlps," was the evasive reply.
The witness proceeded to tell about the
other appointments of receivers made by
him. In the case of the People VS.. the
Pacific Bank he had appointed III. l.
Wiley as receiver.
Didn't the Supreme Court decide that
that appoin ment was illegal 2" was asked.
mot in that case entirely," replied
Judge Hebbard in hesitating manner.
MI. Thornton called attention TO the de-
cision Of the Supreme Court that the APP
bointment Of a receiversin the case OF the
People against the State Investment and
Insurance Company was illegal. Several
cases were quoted by Mr.. Thornton in
witch the Supreme Court had decided
that receiver could not be appointed In
Bank The witness replied that the de-
cision Of the Supreme Conrt was very
fresh in his mind at the time he appointed
General Sheehan in the Knight and Cold
Tree cases.
i j $50. said Mr.. Thornton, 1.-The Supreme
%odft had twice decided before you made
NE appointment of General Sheehan IN
TIE KHight and Goldtree cases to the erect
that your appointment of receivers in
such cases was totally void 2"
Mr. Foote saved the witness from this
question by the objection that the record
was the best evidence Mr.. Thornton tried
another tack:
lyon ntaua on order amounting re-