The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-04

Delmas filed an affidavit and motion to
permit the directors to resign, provided
that all parties would agree as to the per-
sonnet of the new board. Judge Hebbard
said frequently from the bench on both
occasions tEat he would modify the in
junction if the stockholders and the de
positors agreed upon the Lew board.
There was no possibility of their ever
agreeing. The witness could not swear
that judge Hebbard used the word ''repn-
dated" when Mr.. Delmas spoke of his
promise. Judge Hebbard cid not then
state what promise he did make.
General Sheehan was recalled and said
that when he took possession of the bank
he found So 35 cash and special deposit
of $150i 90 in tin box, out of which had
been taken S247 So represented by paper
tag left by Director Graves. There was
also a check showing the payment OF
$500 to Delmas g. Shortridge for legal
services, dated May l, 1894.
This check was admitted in evidence.
Mr.. Thornton offered and placed in
evidence the contract between the bank
and Delmas d Shortridge, IN which it was
agreed that the firm should receive $4,000
per annum. of which sum they were to
receive $4,000 upon the execution of the
contract, which was dated April 49, 1894.
WAS it not the fact that Delmas q
Shortridge did not receive what they were
entitled TO under the contract? Was any
sum of money other than this $500 re-
ceiVed by Delmas & Shortridge between
the date of the execution of the contract
April 1S, 1894, and May l of the same
Year," asked Mr.. Thornton.
"No, sir.''
do you mean to convey the i'm preston
that there was anything Irregular in the
presentation and payment of this check r
mot at all,n replied Attorney Kahn
before the witness could say anything
I'VE never claimed that there was any
thing wrong about it.
Then why did you bring it into this
case'' demanded Mr.. Thornton.
Because it has been charged that the
money of the bank has been squanderec
in attorney fees p replied Mr.. Kahn
"There were Others" said General Shee
han. There was L. E. Phillips, who re
ceiyed $500 per month"
There is no contention here,' repeated
Mr.. Kahn, ''that this contract is unjust o.
irregular"
Mr.. Henley argued that the Sheehan
Watt crowd had prevented Deimas &
Shortridge from carrying out their con
tract and had hired other attorneys ate
having paid DeImas & Shortridge Ger
tain sum of money under the contract
which was a wasteful use of the money.
General Sheehan told about Samuel M
Shortridge going to the bank on May 2
and demanding possession of the prem
ises, claiming that he was the lie al attor
ney of the bank. The witness refused t.
acknowledge Mr.. Shortridge in tina
capacity.
Attorney BARNETT told about Jndg
Hebbard requesting the defendant, Viii
hams. to disabuse the minds of the de
positors of the impression that he, tn,
Judge, was biased and unfair in his treat
ment of the depositors. The JUICE &C
eused Williams of having made defama
tory statements concerning him, anC
Williams denied having done so. Thel
the Judge promised to do what he coult
to have Williams appointed on the neV
board OF directors.
An adjournment was had until Il
o'clock this morning.