The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-05-06

ing it. further inquiry along the So lines
ceased.
Attorney John L. Flournoy was called
for, but could not be found. Kahn was
for preventing Flournoy from testifylng II
his story was simply to corroborate the
narratives of Com mitteemen Mccarthy
and Conant relative TO Sheehan's man.
agement of the banks assets. Judge
Daingerleld was for ruling that II TINS
was the case Flournoy need not be heard.
Attorney Shortrldge, however CURLY IN
formed the court that he would exercise
his right to have his witnesses sworn.
By stipulation Thomas Mahoney, William
Harris and William Quatman were e1-
cused from being called, the Hebbard
faction agreeing that their evidence would
corroborate that of Mccarthy and Conant.
Thomas S. Williams Jr., one of the
directors of the bank, was called to tell
something about the circumstances at
tending q transaction between the Kansas
City Real Estate Association and the bank,
in which Watt was paid $3.50 for an extern
sion of time on the associations indebted
ness of S35 600.
Another protest went up from the Heb
bard faction. Judge Daingertield asked
if it was proposed to prove that Judge
Hebbard knew of this transaction.
I'VE are accused" said Attorney Short
ridge, lin our alleged libel of saying that
ana orphans to lose money. We are pre-
pared to show that the assets of this bank
were deprecated. We will prove that this
took place with the knowledge of Judge
Hebbard, who, as We contend, was morally
responsible for the action. Now, if il be
true that through Sheehan there was q
loss to the depositors, and that this was
done after Judge He bbard had been ad-
vised of and warned against his servants
nj htyD lntt IN ion nd no.
titlons, we may contend that he is NOR
ally res ponsi BILE for the losses of the bank"
do you know if Sheehan, as receiver,
drew money without an order of cour;?'
Kahn interposed an objection with sue
cess.
Attorney Shortridge desired to learn if
Williams knew that Sheehan had been
allowed money by Judge Hebbard. which
action the Supreme Court declared null
and void.
Also Attorney Kahn would not see
his client impaled in this manner. He
objected with both hands at once, and
Judge Daingertield would fain grant his
request.
do you know if Receiver Sheehan
drew money from the banks assets be-
fore authorized to do so by either Judge
H bbard or the board of directors?'
Kahn was shocked again, and the court
poured more balm in his nerves by refusing
to permit Villa ms to answer the question.
1t was slow work. but Attorney Short
ridge finally drove center shot when he
inquired from Williams il he though mt that
Judge Hebbard was aware OF these facts.
Certainly" was the reply. Attorney
BARNETT, in behalf of the California Safe
Deposit and Trust Company, objected tC
allowing Sheehan money in mis- court"
Assem- blyma George W. Dixon was
called to give the details of certain i'll
terview between himself and Attorney
Watt in the Union League rooms at the
time Dixon was selected as q candidate
for director by the depositors.
did Watt ask you to retain him as at
torDey for the bank?" Queried Attorney
Shortridge.
Kahn disputed the question.
Did he likewise ask you to vote for his
retention as attorney for the bank?"
Kahn again successfully "objected."
did Watt say that you did not favor
Sheehan and him self-that he would see
that the in junction was not mod flied, and
that the old board would not be allowed to
resign?'
TIE reply to this Hebbard's attorney
managed 20 prevent. Dixon could not re-
member If at this time Judge Hebbard
had been asked to modify the injunction
allowing Directors Mcdonald, Jenkins,
Strauss and Boushey to resign. as they de-
sired to. Watts political affiliations for
Hebbard were familiar to Dixon. He
knew that the two had long been friends
and active workers in campaigns.
did Watt say that be was a partlcu-
larly warm friend of Judge Hebbard, and
that unless he was provided for he would
use his influence with the Judge TO pre-
vent m odifcatlon of the injunction ~
This was red rag to Kahn and Heb
bard, and lively wrangle ensued to pre-
vent Dixon giving his replv Judge
Daingertield finally sustained Kahn's OBJ
jections and Dixon was dismissed with out
further examination.
Judge S. &. benson gave some side lights
on a transaction between himself and the
bank in September 1894. Judge benson,
as attorney for the Lower Kings River
Reclamation District, got a judgment in
default of unpaid assessments, amount
ing with interest to about $500, against a
Mrs. Humphreys. About the same time
the bank foreclosed a mortgage for $40 00U
on the same property. The affair was ar
ranged amicably by selling the property
for the amount OF the two claims. Judge
benson related that after the bank failed
he settled his claim for $500.
Attorney Shortrldge was anxious to
show that the books of the bank showed
that $500 had been diverted to pay the
reclamation Judgment. but again Kahn
jurors will have to wait another day to
learn what became of the difference be-
tween these two sums.
The refusal of Hebbard's attorneys to
cross-examine Livernash at the appointed
time was the cause of much confusion.
Attorney Shortridg e expected that this
work would occupy the entire after DON
and had excused many of his witnesses.
Judge Daingerfield promised that such a
hitch would not be allowed to occur again.
After searching for Deputy County Clerk
Fitzgerald about the City Hall, only to
learn he was downtown" Attorney
Shortridge put Dr. Fred w. Harris on the
stand to relate Watts attempt TO swing
the physicians Influence in favor of him.
self and Sheehan.
did you have a conversation with Watt
in June, 1894?"
Yes Watt called to see me-
Had you at that time consented to
serve as director in the bank if the in
junction was modified so as to allow the
old board to resign?"
Eyes, SIR"
Did Watt ask of you your vote or in
fuence in Sheehan's favor if elected?'
Kahn objected.
did he say that unless you did consent
to act favorably to the interests of Shee-
han and himself he would see to it
that his influence with Judge Heb bard
would prevent the injunction being modi
fed 2'
Kahn again made a protest and Jud ge
Daingerfeld would not allow the oues-
ton. The case goes on this morning.