The San Francisco call., 1897-04-29
Judge Hebbard. the attorney for the pros
ecution objected vociferously. The scene

ton with Mr.. Mccarthy IN MIR. Hutton's ofiic
in which
Mr.. Kahn-Right here we object.
The court-What is the ground OF the ob1ec
ton?
Mr.. Shortridge-Your Honor, I had no
finished my question and counsel does no
know whether he objects or not. 1 protes
against the irrepressiole Mr.. Kahn's methods
The court-Counsel for the prosecution i
certainly not in order. Counsel for the de
tense has right to state his question.
This surprised the lawyer for the prose
cution, as he had begun 10 think he coult
nave everything just to suit himself
MT. Shortridge Ito witness)-Do you recall
mat conversation In which you spoke OF Judg
Hebbards willingness to modify the People,
Home Savings Bank Injunction under certain
circumstances?
Mr.. Watt-I do. was talking with Mr.. Hut
ton when Mr.. Mccarthy came IN.
Mr.. Shortridge-Did you insist that Receive
Sheenan should be a member of the new
tion?
MIR. Watt-I may have suggested it, but
don't remember that insisted on it. 1 an
wiling to state the entire conversation SO fal
as remember it,
Mr.. shortridge-Did yousay to Mr.. Mccarthy
that Judge Hebbard was your friend, and
that you would use your influence to prevent
q modlhcation of the injunction by Judge
Hebbard unless Mr.. Sheehan were included IN
Ihe new list of directors?
Mr; Watt-Not in those words, and not as
I'm pied In your question. l will explain the
conversation If you Will permit me to do so.
Mr. Shortridge-That is your right. Please
give your explanation.
MT. Watt-I said substantially that l was
salsfed Judge Hebbard would not modify the
huJunction unless he was satisfied that fair
poaro OF directors would be chosen. Some
thlng was said about my being a friend oi
Judge Hebbard, but laid claim to no greater
or other influence than lawyer with just
cause would have before a court.
Mr.. Shortridge-Did you say to Mr.. Nc
Carthy that unless Mr.. Sheehan would be put
In the new directorate his plan for reoIganiza-
tion couldn't go?
Mr. Watt-Not IN those words. 1 went to
Mr.. Hutton's office to just the difficulties. ]
sugges ted General Sheenan as good man for
the place. He had been appoin ted receiver by
Judge Hebbard, and would doubtless have
peen acceptable to Judge HebDard as q
director.
Mr.. shortridge-were you Mr.. Sheehan's
attorney at that time?
Mr.. Watt-Yes.
MI shortridge-And subsequently attorney
for the bank?
Mr.. Watt-well. yes. 1 was elected attorney
Mr.. Shortridge-And acted as such attorney
for the bank while still attorney for the re-
ceiver?
Mr.. Watt-Yes, part of the time appeared
as attorney for the bank before the receiver
was discharged.
Mr.. .Shortridge-while attorney for both the
receiver and for the bank did you appear s
attorney for certain stockholders?
Mr. Watt-I represented some stockholders
at that time. l do not rememb Der that signe d
any papers as attorney Tor such stock ders
curing that time, but / may have done so.
Ihere was great deal OF litigation and was
asked 10 help straighten out the tangle.
In the afternoon Mr.. Watt went into an
explanation of the court proceedings
which followed the failure of the bank.
Mr.. Kahn said the cross-examination
would be brief. He asked if ne had con-
suited with Judge Hebbard in regard to
at the Judge would do in regard to
modifying the injunction.
Mr.. Shortridge said the question was
Objectionable for the reason that calling a
man a tool is not'a reflection on the char
acter of Judge Ii does not imply moral
turpitude. Ii designing men should con-
in carrying out their plan it may be said
that they made Il tool OF the court-un-
Willingly, it may be, but the fact remains,
and the court would not arraign the man
who said the court had been made a tool
Of but would punish those who took ad-
vantage OF the court. The dictionaries
read In the presence of the jury showed
that the word tool merely means a
catspaw. In the old story it was the
draw the chestnuts from the fire, and so
it is here. There was no reflection on the
cat; but somebody had been monkey
ing" with the court.
The assumption that the court knew
nothing of the matter made it ali the
stronger, said Mr.. Stortridge, for il would
be unlikely that designing men who in
tended to make use of Judge would tell
him OF it; in any view the question is i'm
material.
Judge Dain erfield said there are two
meanings of the word tool. The ordinary
sense of the word is bad, but the word may
he used harmlessly. He thought the State
had g 1igh; to show whether Judge Heb
bard was made aware of Mr.. Watts alleged
boasts.
The question was allowed and Mr. Watt
said he did not tell Judge Hebbard any,
thing about it.
Mr.. Shortridge said that he regretted
that the attorneys for the State insisted
on trying Judge Heboard instead of the
defendant, and called General John f.
Sheehan, who said he had held several
offices, notably Registrar of the United
States Land Office. brigardier- general
ad diutant-general, Bank Com missioner
and now is secretary and treasurer of the
Yosemite Park Com miss. on, with salary
of $75 month and much responsib bility.
He had got to the point of acknowledg gins
the existence of warm friendship be-
tween himself and Judge Hebbard when
T. III. Mccarthy, one of the unhappy
Peoples Home Savings Bank depositors
chtciCh VIC SOui u oOAli, oHQ MI. SueeDEu Il
temporarily gave up his place on the
witness-stand.
Mr.. Mccarthy was asked by Mr.. Short
ridge 10 tell the conversation that occurred
between him and NJ. Wait in Mr.. Hut
toms office, but Mr.. Hinke objected un-
less the attorney for the defendant could
show that Judge Hebbard knew of what
Mr.. Watt had promised or boasted.
Mr.. Shortridge said he could prove onIy
one thing at time. He proposed to prove
that Mr.. Watt had boasted of his influence
and that afterward things came out lust
as he had said.
Judge Daingerfieid remarked that the
rule of law as he understood it required
that the defense must show the intent OF
Judge Hebbard in order to establish justi-
fication.
Not at all, Mr.. Shortridge contended.
Judge Hebbard was not on trial. He was
not trying to convict Judge Hebbard, but
to acquit Mr.. Marriott. The existence OF
Judge Hebbard is a mere incident in this
trial. He sale that he had drawn atten-
ton time after time to the fact that Judge
Hebbard's knowledge of this converse.
ton Is immaterial as a matter of law, vel
as matter of fact he would be able to
show that Judge Hebbard ad full knowl.
edge of all the facts from beginning ro
end.
At this point an cd iournment was taken
until 10 o'clock this morning.