The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-02
MIR. Dsa stfying That Judge Hbbard Broke His Promise
to the Depositors'@ Committee. Mr.. Henley Asking
. Witnesses Whether James Ava Watt Was Notorious

fornia Sale Deposit and Trust: Company,
the assignee of a.large mum Der. of claims
of the bank. to inspect the. books of the
hank The witness said also on that occa-
sion that ne did not know what amount of
money had been. paid to Mr.. Watt, the
attorney for thereceiver. That was one of
the reasons why he was DESTROYS of having
access to the books, and he therefore OBJ
iected to the settlement of the account
and the discharge of the receiver and his
bondsmen. There was no detatleG &C:
count of receipts. and disbursements.
That was In the case of Goldtree and
others against the Peoples Home Savings
Bank.
In that case the stockholders were ask
ing for an accounting Judge Hebbard
said that he had no jurisdiction to settle
any account, that that matter had been
settled by the Supreme Court. and that
the Bank Com missioners and the board of
/ directors were. the proper to adj
just and determine the counsel fees and
the fees. of the seceiyer.
Objection having been made. to this line
of. evidence Mr.. Henley, with a copy of
the alleged hbelous circular in his hand,
proceed ed to argue the matter.
''Ihe object of the testimony" said; Mr..
Henley, lis to sustain the allegation of
this circular IN respect to the improper
discharge of the receivers"
The witness vent oon to say that in
December 1894, an expert was placed on
the books Of the. bank by the California
Safe Deposit and Trust Company and the
expert reported to witness. every day. In
the latter part OF Decen Der General John
f. Sheehan refused to permit he expert
to examine the books any further. The
general was compelled some time in Janu-
ary 1895, under an alternative writ of
mandamus served upon him; to again
allow the, expert to inspect the books.
The retirement of three OF the directors
left the old board in the majority.
! Mr.. Bartnett next related the substance
of what occurred at a meeting in the
Office of the California Safe Deposit and
Trust Company, on which occasion Judge
Hebbard suggested that the depositors
ought to have majority of the board of
directors. General Sheehan objected to
the depositors having majority and it
was finally agreed that they were to have
three directors out of the board of seven.
T. H. Mccarthy, the next witness, was
asked by Mr.. Henley whether he knew
James Alva Watt by reputation or other
wise before Watt had secured his appoint
ment and the witness replied that he did
| not.
"Did you know it afterward ?" was the
next question.
Mr.. Foote objected and made speech
in which he explained that he objected to
Mr.. Watts reputation being attacked
merely because some disgruntled stock
holders were not satisfied with his action.
Mr.. Henley thereupon proceeded to
read the alleged libelous circular, and
commented upon its opening statements
as being true and substantiated by the
evidence taken in the case thus far. Mr.
Henley read from the circular as follows:
In May, 1894, depositors in The insolyent
Pa0nlQpS nr0o zad or,d
appointed committee to look after their in
terests. Their first efforts were directed
toward securing satisfactory board OF direc-
tors. The existing board had been prohibited
from meeting for any purpose whatever by
Judge Hebbard.
THAT'S true" commented Mr.. Henley.
He then read the mention of 1.-THE notori-
Gus James Alva Watt, and the mention
OF the name of General Sheehan as ian
irresponsible, political parasite"
Now, the proposition is simply this"
said Mr.. Henley, that by reason of the
fact that this character of persons was ap-
pointed by Judge Hebbard, it is not al
legged, as your Honor Will see, that Judge
Hebbard appointed these men knowing
them to be so and so; but the proposition
was that a Judge who would violate his
promise-who would appoint men of this
character to positions of this sort-was an