The San Francisco call., 1896-11-25
Williams Will Plead Justifca.
tion for His Now Famous
Circular.
TO CITE THE BANKS BOOKS,
James Alva Watt and John F. Sheehan
Also Brought Into the
Discussion.

ing before a jury in Judge Daingerfeld's $
court yesterday. The ever present circu-
lar issued by Williams and other deposit
ors in the Peoples Home Savings Bank
was read and reread to the jury until it is
believed that the majority of them must
have committed it to memory, and few
of them ought TO be able to repeat it from
beginning to end, even in their sleep.
The apparent intention of the defense
TO dispute due proof of the publication of
the circular, which the defendants attor-
ney admitted to be in part probably libel
Gus if not true, was abandoned yesterday,
and Attorney Crittenden Thornton, in
his opening statement for the defendant,
said he would attempt to prove justlica-
ton. He said that the defense would
prove as was never proved before the alle-
cations in the circular, that would go to
show that Judge Hebbard was actually
an unfair man, and was unfit to hold the
position of Judge; that the defense would
prove that by his manner of giving out
judicial patronage to John f. Sheehan
and James Alva Watt. the prosecuting
witness here, Judge Hebbard, had shown
himself to be unfair and an unfit person
to aspire to such an office as he was seek
Attorney Thornton read to the jury the
opening paragraph of the circular wherein
it was alleged that "a sensational paper
had misrepresented the facts" and as
sured the jurors that this allegation was
not material, whether true or not, as it re-
lated to third party. Having thus dis
posed of the Examiner as an immaterial
matter, the attorney proceeded.
Going on down the column OF printed
matter Mr.. Thornton read the state ment
that Judge HebDard had promised to allow
the board of directors of the Peoples Home
Savings Bank to meet for the purpose
of resigning, but that on the day follow
ing he changed his mind and refused to
let them meet for any purpose whatever.
This. NJ. Thornton said, was because
James Alva Watt, who with John
+. Sheehan was the recipient of Judge
Hebbard's patronage, opposed the ap-
pointment or recognition OF any board of
directors that would not employ him as
their attorney. He said that Watt, who
in the circular was described as "notori-
ous," had such influence with Judge Hep
bard that he and John f. Sheehan were
sure of all the patronage in Judge Heb
bard's court.
In justification of the term "parasite, -
as applied to John F. Sheehan, Mr.. Thorn
ton said that il five years Sheehan has
not earned dollar outside of what he re-
ceived in consequence of appoin tine ents
made by Judge Hebbard. and that durin z
that period Sheehan has been paid not less
than $4,000 on account of fees and emolu-
ments under such appointments. This
sum, he said, was almost equal to the
salary received by Judge Hebpard him.
self as member of the Superior Court OF
the City and County of San Francisco.
When Mr.. Thornton was about to quote
from Webster's Dictionary to prove that
parasite is one VINO dimes with another, or
hn Is nv nd h =
significance has been twisted, Attorney
W. w. Foote objected to argument by
counsel before the testimony was in.
District Attorney Barnes and Attorney
Barclay Henley mixed up in the dis
cussion. but Mr. Thornton held his
permitted him to proceed in his own way
in presenting his views to the jury as to
the facts that were essential TO prove in
order to establish Justification of issuing
the circular.
Continuing his statement of facts that
were to be proved Mr.. Thornton said that
when Judge Hebbard was the presiding
Judge of the Superior Court he allotted to
himself all the cases pertaining TO the
Home Savings Bank, and invariably ap-
pointed Sheehan to some position If there
was an opportunity 10 do so, even after
the Supreme Court had decided that he
had no right to do so; that Sheehan was
three times so appointed.
After the Supreme Court had knocked
out Sheehan as receiver of the Peoples
Home Savings Bank, Mr.. Thornton said,
James Alva W2tt manipulated the stock
in such way that Sheehan was appoint
ed secretary and manager OF the bank and
Watt was appointed his attorney. The
securing of the majority Of the stock was
necessary to prevent the attempt to shake
off the grip which Sheehan and Watt
had on the millions of the bank.
In the Goldtree case against the bank,
Mr.. Thornton said, which was brought by
the procurement of these same men, the
attorney who filed the suit never met his
client, and knew nothing of the matter at
the time. In that case Sheehan had been
appointed as receiver and Wait as attor-
ney, as usual. SO that finally Watt was at.
torney for the receiver and IN three sepa-
rate cases, and was also attorney for The
bank Thus Sheehan, who was receiver
in three suits against the bank, was at the
same time manager of the bank and
Watt was his attorney in ali the cases.
Sheehan. who occupied two antae onistic
positions. was backed up by Watt his at
torney, who also occupied two antagonis-
tic positions.
In regard to the allegation in the circu-
lar that the receiver had been discharged
by Judge Hebbard without proper ac
counting, Mr.. Thornton said 1t would be
shown that no accounting whatever had
been made then or since, and no docu-
ment is on file which pretends to be
an accounting of the millions tnat
came into the hands OF these men. The
only attempt at an accounting, he said
was when James Alva Watt and hl.
brother, Rolla V. Watt, a mem Der of the
board of directors of the Peoples Home
Savings Bank. appeared in court and SAID
they were satisfied with Sheehan's man
ngement of the banks affairs. This, how.
ever. was not a lawful accounting, and the
circular had stated the strict truth in say.
ing that no proper accounting had been
demanded of Sbeehan as receiver before
he was discharged. The records of the
bank would be appealed TO in order tc
prove that Watt and Sheehan drew $500 q
month from the defunct bank.
Having thus clearly stated what he ex-
pected to prove, Mr.. Thornton said the de-
Tense would not make an appeal to mercy,
but would ablish as facts all the ailega-
tions OF the circular in justification of the
charge that Judge Hebbard was unfair
and unfit to occupy seat on the Superior