The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-05-07
YESTERDAYS WITNESSES IN THE MARRIOTT Gaze

, court clerk, was also at the meeting.
Hebbard's stenographer, Harrison Jones,
had conveniently loaned HIM passbook
for the occasion. Fitzgerald declared that
he had behaved himself on the occasion.
When Attorney Shortridge ATTEMPTED to
learn if Jones had been lending" pass
books to other people Attorney Kahn got
in with hands and feet, with the result
that Judge Daingerfeld thought the IN
quiry irrelevant.
Milk INSPECTOR Dockery-res plendent
Dockery-proved to have been an active
worker to break up the meeting
He admitted that he had the pleasure
of placing a friend in nomination 1o1
chairman, - but, strangely enough, could
not remem Der ''the friends" name until
prompted by Hebbard's attorneys. Dock
erv's candidate proved to be man named
Gregory. who was slated for the chair by
some of Hebbard's sympathizers VINO
were present
The milk inspector admitted that he
had his weapous on him, but denied that
he attem pied to use them when the men,
bers of the depositors' committee remon-
strated with him for interruptng the
meeting.
ATTORNEY Shortridge desired 10 have G.
Z Palmer, secretary of the bank, read the
record of moneys paid to Receiver Shee-
han from the records OF the bank.
,
that sums of money were drawn by the
receiver against the wishes of the deposit
ors and allowed by the court or Judge
Hebbard The court records show that
when the pretended accounting was pre-
sented to Judge Hebbard at the time OF
Sheehan's discharge Attorney Bartnetf,
on behalf of the California Safe Deposit
and Trust Company, the assignee OF
$727, 900 worth of deposits, objected to the
on
a proper one, that it had been allowed
under blanRet resolution passed by a
board of directors of the receivers own
creation.
II wish 10 show by the books that GER
tain payments were made under this Dian-
ket ratification of illegal acts winch
should never have been paid. Sheehan
went into and took possession OF the bank
by an order of the court. at the outset
and subsequently it was maintained that
the order was null and void. The court
cannot authorize, nor can any one else
authorize, moneys to be paid under an IL
legal order. In the end, however, some
body attempts to ratify the actions of this
receiver. Now it is said that this board of
directors ratifes all these actions by a
blanket resolution, and that the court
had nothing to do but sit as an auto
maton. AS a receiver Sheehan was a
steward OF the court, and he presents an
Endorsement from these directors certify
ing to his conduct Surely it is idle to say
that because this blanket re solution was
present that the court is absolved fro m all
liability, because his attention was called
to it, and because the application of wise
and right rules of law would have an
nulled these payments"
Judge Daingerfeld inquired if the pro-
priety of any of the payments or transac-
lions had been called 10 Judge Hebbard' s
attention.
Attorney Shortridge replied that Heb
bard knew that Sheehan was acting lille
gally, because the Supreme Court had de-
cared the order Of his appointment was
null and void. "Afterward this receiver
appears in court and asked that he be dis
charged and his bondsmen exonerated.
Then comes Attorney BARNETT and objects
to the accounting. and in reply Shethan
presents this blanket resolution. We are
charged in our alleged libel with declaring
that Judge Hebbard was morally RESPONSE
BILE for losses TO the de posiiors of the bank,
and here we show that there was certainly
an Illegal abstraction of funds from the
bank, because the receiver was working
under an order that the Supreme Court
declared null and void. We take the po-
sition under these circumstances that any