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

Mr.. Henley replied that he was follow
ing the example of Mr.. Foote. and that
gentleman retorted by saying that Mr..
Henley was making statement devoid OF
truth. This, Mr.. Henley denied, and Mr..
Foote remarked that MIR. Henley had made
a statement which he knew not to be true.
Mr.. Henley was retorting in kind, when
the court called both gentlemen to order
in time to prevent the passing Of the lie
direct.
James Alva Watt was called to the wit
| ness stand by the defense, and in reply to
questions by Mr.. Thornton said that he
had been acquainted with Judge Hebbard
for about sixteen years. The witness at
| tended convention in Sacramento and
did all he could TO further Judge Heb
bard's nomination, but his name was not
| placed before the convention. General
| Sheehan was in Sacramento at the time,
| but he was not delegate to the conVen.
ton.
On the 9th of July, 1894, the witness was
appointed attorney for the bank. He was
made the attorney for the receiver on the
same day on which General Sheehan was
appointed receiver. The witness was
present at the meeting when the new di-
rectors were elected and appeared as a
representative of the parties named in the
| books.
Ibid you or did you not control the
casting of the vote of 3440 shares held in
the name of William Jenningson?" asked
Mr.. Thornton.
II did not" replied Mr.. Watt; 81 had
no control over them whatever. They
were cast by Mrs. Jenningson, the wife Of
the owner of the shares, who acted as his
proxy"
He had never seen Mrs. Jenningson be-
fore the day on which she appeared at the
meeting.
Mr.. Henley called Louis Jacobs to the
1 ~ u cd
| the divorce suit against George E. White,
the Mendocino cattle king. He said that
| it was charged in the circular that Heb
! bard was an unfair and unfit person to be
Judge, and he (Henley) wanted a ruling
as to whether or not the defense was linn
tied to the matters incorporated in the
circular. The paper offered in evidence
was an affidavit by an attorney in the
White case. who com planned that the
Judge had been guilty OF unfair conduct.
| Mr.. Foote, in very angry manner,
| sprang to his feet and said that the paper
| had been got up by a disgruntled attor-
ney in the White case. cit is not fair; it
is not decent, to offer that record" he
! added.
"Oh, pshaw - exclaimed Mr.. Henley, in
a tone of contempt; II don't care what
| you say"
II don't care. either" retorted Mr..
| Foote, holly.
| Both men were flushed and angry
Judge Hebbard looked annoyed, and there
| is no knowing what might have happened
had not the court interrupted the gentle
men with a call to order.
| The court would not allow the paper in
| evidence, and the defense announced that
| their case was closed.
The prosecution placed Judge Hebbard
on the stand in reputtai. The Judge be-
| gan by saying, II wish to say that I did
n cn that nuId-p NH ho Nv
! interrupted by Mr.. Henley with the objec-
| ton that the Judges testimony should be
| gived by way of question and answer.
The witness proceeded to say that At
torney-General Hart called upon him with
complaint in suit on behalf of the
| People of the State OF California, on the re-
| latlon OF the Attorney-General against the
Peoples Home Savings Bank, asking that
the bank be declared unsafe for further
continuance in business, and requested
decree of the court to put it into iquida-
ton under the banking act.
The Attorney General on that occasion
advised Judge Hebbard that he had no
| doubt that the appointm of receiver
was proper, and that-it was a case OF great.
urgency.
Objection was raised to this converse
ton by the defense.
The witness then narrat ted how he took
| the papers from the Attorney General,
and how the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT named
certain man as receiver who is not con-
nected with this case. Then Judge Heb
bard informed General Hart that he had
never made a mistake since he had been
on the bench in the appointment of Off
GERS of the court, and that he proposed to
appoint as receiver, not the person named
by General Hart, but General John f.
Sheehan, gentleman with whom he, the
witness, was well acquainted, and in
whose capability and integrity the wit
ness had unbounded confidence. He had
appointed General Sheehan, be said, as a
commissioner in the case of Emeric VS..