The San Francisco call., 1896-11-25
THORNTOu'S SCORCH|NG REVIEW
Of JUDGE HEBBARD'S COURSE
Vigorously Denies in His Opening Statement That
the Complaining Jurist Was
Libeled.

ruling which admitted the statement
and argument" just ended by Mr.. Thorn
ton.
Attorney Henley, representing the de-
fendant, announced that the first thing to
be presented TO prove justification of the
charges against Judge Hebbard vas the
record in the case OF knight ct al. against
the Peoples Home Savings Bank, which
suit was instituted by the Attorney Gen.
eral of the State of California and was
tried in Judge Hebbard's court.
Just as Mr.. Henley had pitched his voice
to the key so essential for the effective
reading of legal documents and had pro-
ceeded as far as the title of the court and
cause, he was interrupted by Mr.. Foote
and District Attorney Barnes, both of
whom were instantly on their feet TO in
| terpose objections.
Mr.. Foote was the first to speak. He
said that it would be altogether irregular
and erroneous to admit the records OF all
the Peoples Home Savings Bank cases,
( bee auSe nothing could be proved thereby
except that Judge Hebbard had ap-
pointed John f. Sheehan to certain posi-
tions and that Sheehan had employed
James Alya Watt as his attorney. Now
the mere appointment of Sheehan and
Watt TO such positions did not imply
moral turpitude on the part of Jud &c
Hebbard, as was charged in the circular,
unless IL cOulQ De proved InaG Judge
Hebbard had guilty knowledge of the
alleged fact that Sheehan was incom-
petent to act as the manager cf the banks
affairs. that he was parasite. ETC., and
that Watt was notorious" ETC., and not
proper person to act as Sheehans at
torney.
He would assume in advance, Mr.. Foote
added, that the attorneys for the defense
would promise to connect the evidence
now offered, with Judge Hebbard' s knowl-
edge of Sheehan. and Watt, later in the
trial, or they would consent to have it all
stricken out. This was the method some
attorneys pursue in trying such case as
this; but Mr.. Foote was convinced that 1t
was not the proper course. He thought
| that the proof of Judge Hebbard's knowl-
edge of Sheehan's unworthiness, if proof
OF such knowledge exists, ought 10 be pro-
duced first. Then if the records in the
bank cases appear relevant they may be
considered by the court and the jury.
District Attorney Barnes re-enforced
Mr.. Foote's argument with the usual
statutory objection that the records in the
bank cases are imInaterial and incom-
petent, because they do not tend to prove
or disprove any of the issues of the cause
on trial.
Mr.. Thornton responded by making the
very offer that Mr.. Foote SAID he would
namely, that he would consent to have
the testimony adduced from the records
in the bank cases stricken from the pres
ent trial if he and his associates failed 20
prove Judge Hebbard's knowledge of
Sheehan's acts and of his incompetency to
manage the affairs of the great institution
which had been intrusted to him Dy Judge
Hebbard's official acts and solely by sane
ton of Judge Hebbard's judicial order
Judge Daingerield looked up at the
ceiling, as is his wont when about to rule
on some kncttv point, and remarked that
he was not disposed 10 dictate to attorneys
as TO the order in which they presented
the proofs thatthey deem material to their
case.
Before he could complete his ruling
Judge Hebbard reached over and held
whispered consul tation with Mr.. Foote,
who thereupon announced that at the re-
quest of his client, the complaining wit
ness, he would withdraw all objection
to the introduction OF the records of
the bank cases. He said that Judge
Hebbard courted the widest and most
thorough scrutiny of his acts, and was
willing to have all the records that were
deemed material in the slightest degree
brought here for examination and analy-
sis. Mr.. Foote, however reserved his
right to move to strike out the records and
all the evidence adcuced from them I'M
less the attorneys on the other side were
able to connect Judge Hebbard with
guilty knowledge of any unworthiness of
Sheehan and Watt at the time of their
appointment.
Mr.. Henley again adjusted his spectacles
and at once plunged into the reading of
the voluminous complaints, demhrrers.
cross osscompaints, writs of certiorari no.
tees OF appeal, certificates OF appointment
o. receivers, etc., until the jury became
impatient, and an adjournment was taken
until this m orning, when the same thing
will be kept up Tor another session. BY
tomorrow the taking OF oral testimony
will be commenced.
r. II. Mcdonald Jr. is to be witness in
| the case, and the odd thing is that both
sides are said to have subpenaed him.