The San Francisco call., 1897-05-14

was the tool of men who sought to work out
their own ambitious schemes.
After discussion OF the presum ptions
that must go with every citizen, that he
used language of criticism IN an innocent
rather than an harmful sense, the
speaker continued:
What are the facts as they have been de-
veloped in this case? What is the truth so far
as we could learn? What attempt has been
mace here to suppress truth, TO conceal 1acts!
VINO has attempted 10 conceal OF 70
every bit, of evidence. and who was
1t that kept the books, sealed the
locks upon them, and objected successfully, IN
knowledge here? 1 called Judge benson TO
the stand to tell OF rtain transactions at that
lime, Who was it objected and kept the lips
John Flournoy, who. let me assure you, is
one OF the most able and one OF the
purest gentlemen known In this State,
and and who was it that kept his Zip: lips
you gentlemen why he was dismissed and
discharged by that crowd in that bank at that
time? l called many others, and all were
prevented from testifying by the same objec-
tions | produced the miEIte-book-do you
remember that. gentlemen ?-and asked to read
the transactions OF that July meeting,
objections and prevented the reading
OF that record OF those transactions? called
Tor every book and paper which would throw
light upon this matter and in every instance
the Stale here objected, and for reasons which
seemed ST uficient for the court we were denied
the privilege of read ing these impor tant facts
And throughout the whole thing there was
the cowardly pre- tense that the Judge of that
department was ignorant of what he did.
Why, the most ragged tramp that walks
the dusty roads in the SIN Joaquin is
presumed to know the law. And Judge upon
the bench Is not held TO be presumed to know
the facts about which he enters important or
ders, makes important DEGREES, discharges men
from their stewardship, exonerates bondsmen
politicians! He Is not presumed to know
anything he does, but is set upon the bench
like an automaton, working by string pulled
by somebody else, and when his official con-
duct is brought into question throw
around.him the cowardly barrier of ignorance
didn't know what his receiver was doing;
didn't know what his attorney was doing;
didn't know how they were trampling upon
the heads of widows and orphans by throwing
out of the bank building men who had toiled
for their money.
Mr.. Shortridge then discussed at length
the evidence upon which the defendant
based his claim that the charges of the
editorial were true-the appointments of
the receiver, the July meeting at which
Sheehan and Watt voted themselves into
Office, their approval of their own
acts by the board of directors elected by
themselves, the broken promises of Judge
Henbard. In speaking of the men whom
the committee had selected as directors of
the bank if the Judge had allowed the re-
organization OF the directorate. the
speaker paid the following tribute to one
of the gentlemen suggested:
The seventh man was one who had been
abused more, perhaps, than any other man in
this City and upon whom l look as one of
the truest Christian gentlemen that ever en-
gagged in charity or Christian work. / refer to
the seventh director in the person OF
Charles Montgomery. If there be Chris
&c fhnr hA
who will go down in the gutter
to lift up the fallen and put hope into
the heart of the despairing, if there be man
who VIII go among thieves and robbers into
the brothel and strive to rescue one girl or one
boy from death, morally and otherwise, it is
that same Charles Montgomery, who was
bounded and abused because he went there in
the latter days of that sinking bank, because
his friends had asked him to do so, and sought
to aid them as Christian man. And, there
fore, all parties were agreed that Charles
Montgomery should remain on that board.
With brief review OF the salient points
of his argument the speaEor closed, after
appealing to the jury as honest and patri-
otic citizens to deal out not mercy but
Justice to the defendant and to acQuit
him.
A recess was then taken by court
and jury to prepare for the onslaught OF
gument of one hours duration in behalf
of Judge Hebbard.
Kahn set things in motion by quoting
from Shakespeare that he was no orator"
as Mr.. Shortridge, but he was there to
defend my friend, Judge Hebbard. whom
know to be honest and upright" The
theory of criminal actions for libel was
then com mmented on. 1t was that man
might not take the law into his own hands.
The Hebbard version Of the bank liti-
CATION followed. illustrated with frequent
eulogies OF the ''hoIest and upright
Judge" 1t was because that the various
factions of the depositors failed to agree
50 Kahn said. that Judge He bbard refused
to modify his famous blanket resolution
An invocation to free speech ana free
expression of opinion followed. Kahn
closed with political peroration, in
which he pictured Hebbard standing
amid the wreck of a world; but just
what this had to do with the case the
attorney did not vouchsafe an explana-
ton.
Judge DaingerfeId's instructions to the
jury consumed almost an hour. He re-
viewed the law of libel in detail. Con-
cerning the litigation affecting the affairs
of the savings bank Judge Daingerfield
told the jury that Sheehan's appointment
as receiver was an illegal one, but that
Judge Hebbard might have honestly be-
lieved that he was interpreting the law
correctly when be made the order.
A receiver was RESPONSE BILE to the court
for his action, but when he held his Office
under an illegal order it was debatable
question if he should report to the court
or to others, in this instance to the board
of directors. The depositors were the
equitable owners of a bank. Technical
differences between criticism and slander
were then referred to. The line of separa-
ton was rather indefinite and matter for
the jury. AT 4:30 o'clock the jury retired,
and after deliberating returned a verdict
of not guilty.