The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-05-07

secured the election OF board OF directors
." in July, 1894 OF their own creation, prom
Uses 10 make history.
1t may be that when Judge J. c. B. Heb
bard undertook the effort he is now max
ing in Judge Daingerheld' court to gag
freedom Of speech, he made no
reckoning of the facts Edward ]. Liver
nash recited. At any ra;e the story told
By the assistant managing editor OF the
Examiner, which Is Hebbard's journals
tic mouthpiece. is to go unchallenged.
After forty-elght hours OF careful deli bera-
ton, during which resource wa had to
both Watt and Sheehan, Judge Heobard's
attorneys have decided that they will not
cross-examine that witness.
Livernash appeared in court yesterday
ready to be griIed or fricasseed, whichever
way Attorney Kahn might wish; but he
had his pains for nothing. Kahn an
nounced that he believed he would
waive the cross-eXamination OF this wit
ness" He did not give any particular
reasons for this somewhat peculiar devi
alton from court procedure, relying en-
.tirely on his privilege as a prosecuting at
torney.
And so it happened that Livernash did
not have the priv lege OF adding any Sc
quel TO the story, How the depositors Of
the Peoples Home Savings Bank failed to
vote 800 shares of stock at the election IN
1894 -
But in order to draw out more details
Attorney Shortridge had the newspaper
man recite in detail the willingness OF tn e
old board of bank directors to resign, II
allowed by Judge Hebbard, in order that
the bank might be taken charge OF by the
depositors. Llvernash related the desire
= IL Il 80
his connection with the bank. He nego-
tiated with the Anglo Californian and
Crocker- w oolworth banks with view of
. having either of these undertake the liqui-
dation Of the savings bank, if agreeable to
the. depositors. But il was all i'll vain.
Judge Hebbard's Injunction restraining
the old board OF directors from carrying
out their intention OF resigning was an
effectual check to all the wishes OF the de-
Attorney D. NJ. Delmas told of frequent
appeais made 20 Judge Hebbard TO relax
or modify this injunction. As one OF the
attorneys of the old board OF directors he
had called on Judge Hebbard IN his cham
bers with some of the mem bers OF the de-
positors' committee and Attorney Hutton
and asked him to modify the injunction to
the extent of allowing the board to meet
and resign in favor of a new one selected
by the depositors. Judge Hebbard agreed
TO this programme and suggested that the
transfer of directorate might be made Ill
an ad Joining room. 1t was proposed to
have the old directors resign one by one,
and as each vacancy occurred it would be
filed by selection OF the depositors.
WAS the Willingness Of the old board to
step out called to Judge HebbaTd's atten-
t.on2'
at was iE open court, and was COM
mon notoriety for weeks"
In due time Attorney Delmas stated
that Judge Hebbard was called upon to
M dify the injunction, but he declared
mo such understanding and no such
agreement had been reached.
Il replied that it was idle to make this
statement" continued the lawyer, las
others besides myself had heard him
agree to this; but the ourt was master OF
the situation, ana We were obliged TO
submit
% What Was it stood in the way OF carry
ing out the agreement reached between
the old board and the depositors?".
The court-Judge Hebbard."
Attorney Delmas. continuing, said he
had advised Judge Hebbard that he had
no Jur sdlction in the IN after or right to
appoint receiver and shat the Supreme