The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-01

Grant avenue, George W. Dixon. Frederick
w. Harris and ]. ]. O'Farrell, then in the
real estate business on Montgomery street.
When they finally agreed on Mr..
Flint, don't recolIect," said Mr. Short
ridge. MIR. Wilson, cas- bier or ACCOUNT
ant with Wells, Fargo &. Co., was men
toned, and, think the name of DR.. Lo-
gan, though l am not sure as to him.
There had been this understanding which
we regarded as All agreement that II the
old board could agree with the depositors
committee represented at that interview
by MessrS. Hutton and Mccarthy, the in
junction would be modified so as 10 per
nit the old board to meet and resign and
elect their successors. q
81 met Judge Hebbard in the Union
League Club rooms purely by accident, and
l told him in substance what we had done.
While we were talking Mr.. Watt came up
and asked me if there was anything prl-
vate about our conversation. and l said
that there. was not. We told Mr.. Watt the
subject OF the conversation and he joined
in it. had list of those names OH the
back of an envelope, and Mr.. Watt asked
whether / had any objection to giving
him the list. | told him that | had not,
and ! read off the names and Mr.. Watt
took a pencil and wrote them down. Then
Judge Hebpard moved off toward screen
that stood there at that time"
The witness then related what occurred
in Judge Hebbard's court on June II. Mr..
Delmas, on the opening of court, very
briefly recounted the unhappy condition
of affairs, the entanglements and so forth.
and announced that he was happy to be
able to say that these. differences had been
settled, and that in conformity with the
agreement had with the court, the deposit
tors committee and the old board
of directors in Mr.. Shortridge's pri-
vate office they had agreed upon a new
board of directors. He said that he and
all parties represented IN the litigation
were present. Mr.. Delmas was on the
point of announcing the names of the new
directors when a colloquy took place be-
tween him and Judge Hebbard. In the
meantime. Mr.. Hutton of the depositors'
committee had arisen and stated the same
facts.
On that occasion Judge Hebbard said
that there seemed to be some discomfort
on the part of some depositors, and he
took out of his pocket what appeared to
be letter, and stated what some of its
contents were, which were TO the effect
that some depositors were not satisfied
with the new board. Judge Hebbard said
he didn't propose to sign the ORDER Mr..
Delmas taereupon restated the PROPOSE
ton. He called attention to the fact that
both parties in interest were present. both
seeking to have the injunction modified
only to the extent named. Then Judge
Hebbard repudiated and denied the facts
of the interview in his cham bers, and Mr.:
Delmas offered to call witnesses to prove
that this matter had been agreed upon in
the Judges chamber, but Judge Hebbard
told him to be seated. So the matter went
over and the order was not signed.
Mr.. Shortridge went on to say, in reply
to question by Mr. Henley as to whether
Judge Hebbard did not strike the desk
with his fist and show temper in which
condition Judges should not be, that he
seemed TO be angry. The witness did not
remember whether Judge Hebbard struck
the desk with his fist or not, but said that
the judge seemed to be very angry.
On the cross-examination by Mr.. Foote
the witness said that he had been counsel
for Richard II. Mcdonald on two or three
occa sions. The witness remembered that
at one of the meetings in court Mr.. High
ton appeared, representing two OF the old
board. He had proposition to select a
large number of citizens and taxpayers and
by some kind of an arrangement drawing
a new board from them.
Mr.. Foote asked whether the witness
had not drawn $500 from the bank as the
fee of Delmas g. shortridge in the case.
Mr.. Henley objected tic this line OF exam
ination as irrelevant and not cross-exami-
nation.
81 am not undertaking to cast any i'm
putation On Mr.. Shortridge," said Mr..
Foote. ..but want to know if the firm Of
Delmas & Shortridge drew some money
out of the bank after Mr.. Sheehan's APP
pointment and before he qualified"
Mr.. Shortridge, Notwithstanding the
objection of the counsel for the defense,
proceeded to explain the circumstances.
He said: ut was not done with a
knowledge of the issuance of the injunc-
ton or of the order. We did get portion
OF the fee that was due US from the bank.
To crafty Mr. Foote's curiosity l will tell
him that it was stated and misrepresented
by an infamous newspaper in this. town
that is disgrace to San Francisco, to the
State of California and to civilization, as
everyb body knows"
Mr.. Foote interrupted the witness al
this point and objected to any remarks
about newspapers.
"The matter is on the records of the
bank. presume you have transcript OF
the books in your possession" continued
the witness.
"You had contract with the directors
of that bank as to your fee % asked Mr..
Henley.
Yes" was the reply.
Mr.. Henley objected to the questions on
this subject.
II am not here to make any explana-
ton" continued the witness, because
there is nothing that calls for explanation,
but if it is material for counsel or the jury
in this case to know anything about 1t |
am willing to state all the facts.
Mr.. Foote objected to any statements by
the witness on that subject.
II wish to go on with This matter little
further" continued Mr.. Shortfidge.
81 object" said Mr.. Foote.
"The questions you propounded to me,
continued the witness, ''are susceptible oil
a wrong impression"
Il don't place that Interpretation upon
Them" said Mr.. Foote.
81 do not wish to be further misrepre-
scented by an infamous and lying news
paper, and shall not stand it. want no
wrong differences drawn from your ques-
tons, Mr.. Foote," said Mr.. Shortridge.
The court remarked that there was no
occasion to go into any explanation. The
records showed all the facts and every
thing was plain, SO there was no necessity
for the witness to explain.
The court adjourned until 10 NJ. to-day.
After the adjournment of court Mr..
Shortridge was asked as to the identity of
the newspaper which he characterized as
a disgrace TO San Francisco and to ciyIliza-
ton, and he replied:
The Examiner is the paper to which
q dnd Trr-z-x \ H. h. hot &c n