The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-04-20
zone else is responsible for the scandalous mis-
management of The bank since its failure.

E. T. KENDALL,
Thomas S. WILLIAMS JR,
GEORGE Is. CoNANT,
BENJAMIN LUCY,
a. L. CASAvAW,
+. II. QUALMAN,
Peoples Home Savings Bank Depositors' Com.
San Francisco, October 16, 1896.
This was Endorsed in large types with
the legend: What the representatives of
the swindled deposito-s of the People
Home Savings Bank think OF ]. C. B.
Hebbard. Substantial reasons why he
should not be reelected Superior Court
Judge OF the City and County of San
Francisco"
Charles s. WEIGH was the first talesman
submitted to examination as 10 his quail.
fication to act as juror. Mr.. Barnes was
anxious to know if Mr.. WEIGH knew Mr..
Shortridge or &. B. Darwin or William
Beatty, who are associated in the case for
the defendant.
Being treasured on that i'm portant point
Mr.. Kahn asked the gentleman what he
thought bout the privilege OF candidate
for office 10 be protected against adverse
criticism by the public press Mr.. WEIGH
said he thought writers ought to be given
some latitude. He believed in the free
dom of the press III general way. but
thought that there should be no license
granted to publish outrageous statements.
Mr. Shortridge took nearly an hour to
ascertain the feeling of Mr.. WEIGH in re-
gard 10 libel cases in general, ami particu-
larry whether ne thought that candidates
for positions on the bench of the Superior
than cand dates for any other office.
This special inquiry was objected to by
Mr.. Kahn, and was ruled out.
Again Mr.. Shortridge inquired whether
the proposed juror believed that any di-
vinity hedges about Judge. When an
objection was made 10 this Judge Danger
field smiled aud intiinated that he would
like to know the gentleman's views on
that question. SO it was drawn out that
Mr.. WEIGH thinks that all citizens and
candidates ought to be treated substan-
TALLY alike. He could not subscribe to
the theory that there is any divinity that
should protect a Judge from criticism.
He ought to be passed on by voters Just
as other mortals are weighed and consid-
cred when they are candidates for office.
eff litigant should think that he has
been treated unfairly by Judge, and that
the decision has been prejudicial to his
interests, do you think in such case u
lltigant has a right to criticize the Judge
verbally or in publication" asked Mr..
Shortrldge.
No objection was made to this inquiry,
and the gentleman gave it as his idea that
litigant ought to b. permitted to make
such criticism, within the bounds OF rea-
son, but it was impossible to get him to
define the limit of such boundary.
So the inquiry proceeded in sprightly
manner throughout the day.
In the afternoon Deputy District Attor-
ney Walter Hinkle appeared 10 assist in
the prosecution, taking his seat beside
Judge Hebbaru, who occupies a place at
the table reserved for the attorneys for the
prosecution, and took notes OF questions
and answers, occasionally offering words
of counsel and advice 10 the LAWYERS.
do you know Alvinza Hayward j ames
Cross, administrator of the Hobart estate.
7. ID. Mccarthy, E. F. Kendall, Thomas
s. Williams Jr. and the other persons
who were indicted on a charge of libeling
Judge Hebbard ?" was one of Mr.. Kahn s
stereotyped questions.
On the other hand Mr.. Shortridge want
ed to know if Attorney w. T. Baggett,
who was mixed up In some kind OF a
Hale & Norcfuss litigation" was known to
the pro- pectlve juror. Following this up
the same question was asked in regard to
Attorney h. w. Hutton. Attorney Henry
E Highton, Attorney James Ava Watt,
General John +. Sheehan, Colonel George
Stone. ex-City Counselor John A. Du rst
ex-AttorneyGeneral W. II. H. Hart, w.
Nj. Fox, Attorney Henry Eickhoff and
half q dozen more gentlemen, who were
by inference joined in the number of
those who are seeking to press the prose-
cution in this case.
Incident ally it was develored that
jurors hold TO the opinion that news
papers have right and ought to be
privileged to criticize candidates for posi-
tions on the judicial bench.
Ten jurors were examined and passed
for future consideration and action by
counsel. Proceedings will be resumed at
10 o'clock this morning.