The San Francisco call., 1897-04-27
Says He Will Justify the
Alleged Libelous
Article.
s Such Is His Declaration Through
Samuel M. shortridge, His
Attorney.
Scathing Review of Peoples Home
Savings Bank Litigation That
Caused This Dispute.

s. M. Shortridge startled Judge ]. G. B.
Hebbard and his friends yesterday when
he announced in Judge Daingerfeld's s
court that in the Marriott libel case he
proposed to prove that Judge Hebbard
had not been hbeled when the News Let
ter spoke of him as creature" and q
stool who was disgrace to the bench
and who ought not to be elected.
Mr.. Shortridge was making his opening
statement to the jury after Judge danger.
field had denied the motion to dismiss the
charge of libel which is pending against
Editor Frederick Marriott. In presenting
this statement on behalf of his client Mr..
Shortridge gave a detailed history of the
troubles that led up to the present pro-
ceedings. They grew out OF the failure of
the Pacific Bank and the Peoples Home
Savings Bank, both controlled by DR..
R. II. Mcdonald and his sons.
The article in question was based on a
statement made by committee of the
savings bank depositors. in which they
claimed that Judge Hebbard had caused
poor men, widows and orphans to lose
their savings by his unfair acts in main
tanning General J. H. Sheehan in the posi-
ton of receiver of the savings bank when
it had been proved that the interests of
the depositors were jeopardlzed thereby.
Mr.. Shortridge remarked that the record
here purports 10 show that the State of
California is the plaintiff, yet as a matter
of fact it will be made to appear that J. g.
B. Hebbard is the complaining witness
and prosecutor, and that this actually is
properly a civil suit and not a criminal
proceeding.
The serious accusation that Jud ge Heb
bard was unfit for the position he sought
would be plainly proved by the records of
the court, and would be sustained and
overproved by oral testimony from the
witness chair.
No malicious intent on the part of Ed
itor Marriott had been proved, and the
defense will show that so far from tn ere
being any malice, Mr.. Marriott did not
write the article, and knew nothing of it
until after it was published. But even if
he had known OF it, there would be no
difficulty in proving that it was published
from praiseworthy and justifable mo-
tives, such as ought to actuate every hon.
orable man In free country. Further
more, it is a privileged communication,
such as one voter has a right to address to
other voters in discussing the claims and
character of a candidate for office.
The State ought to be compelled to
prove actual malice on the part of citi-
zen pu bishing his opinion OF a candidate
for office before such citizen may be i'm
cence of the defendant is established by
law, and must be overcome by the attor-
neys for the prosecution before q convic-
ton can be- had.
In determining the question OF the un-
fitness of Judge Hebbard for the Office he
Judge Hebbard's record even when he
was Justice of the Peace. Technically
speaking, he was qualified Judge, for he
held position on the bench. but as to
whether he was really qualified for the
place as to his learning, his mental attri-
butes, his temper, his disposition to be
partial to his friends and those who influ-
ence and control his acts, would be proper
subject of inquiry, said Mr.. Shortridge.
An investigation will be made into his
decisions as Justice of the Peace to see
whether he was guided by reason and
justice or whether he was swayed by petty
spite and paltry considerations. When
Judge Hebbard came to the Superior
Court his record would be examined to see
whether he discharged his duty there as
broad-minded Judge or whether he acted
more like small politician In q large
place. " neither he was disposed to pur-
sue and punish men he did not like or to
reward his favorites.
With fine touch of humor Mr.. Short.
ridge referred to the extravagant praise
and the sickenIng adulation that had
been heaped on Judge Hebbard by some
of his henchmen. He was by them held
up for the admiration of startled world
in terms more complimentary than had
ever been bestowed on Chief Justice Mar
shall or Lord Eldon. On the other hand,
there had been some harsh criticism of
Judge Hebbard, and citizens had as much
right to one form OF expression as the
other. Mr.. Marriott had only exercised
that right, and no American jury would
send him to jail.
which the charge of libel was based, Mr..
Shortridge referred specially to the word
creature" and added: II may prove
that Judge Hebbard was the creature of
the most immoral boss that was ever
known In San Fran CISCO"
Attorney julius Kahn, as special coun-
sci for the prosecution, objected to Mr..
Shortridge stating what he may" prove.