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

come a director of the bank. Sheehan
allowed him to vote 300 shares OF stock
held by DR.. Jennings and paid for with a
note for $107, 900. The strange part OF it
was that they had previously obtained an
injunction to prohibit any one else voting
this block of stock, and it was afterward
declared fraudulent issue. 1t served its
purpose, however, at the time, and after
Thornton's election was Cancelled NC
Carthy then related numerous ruses OF
Sheehan to retain himself in power.
Attorney Kahn rather startled the court
bv declaring that it was only through the
goodness of heart that Judge Heboard
allowed the depositors in the bank at all.
The resolutions were then read, much to
Hebbard's chagrin. Judge Da1ngerheld
thought that there was only moral duty
on Judge Hebbard's part to comply with
the request contained in them.
THAT'S ali we have said in our libel "
added Attorney Shortridge. I'VE have
but declared that Judge Hebbard was
morally responsible in this matter"
"But possibly when Judge Hebbard got
these resolutions he did not believe
Them" said Judge Daingertield.
That's the excuse many other men
have made" was the reply.
On cross-examination Kahn wanted to
learn from Mccarthy if the Bank Com
missioners had not commented favorably
upon Sheehan's management OF the bank.
The answer was not to his liking. lie
even was for striking it from the record
when Mccarthy told him that the "com-
mIssioners never Endorsed Sheehan' S
actions and had told the committee that
they had no jurisdiction over his doings,
as they did not take charge OF the bank
until after he was removed"
Kahn then sought to introduce report
OF the California Safe Deposit and Trust
Company commencing Sheehans doings.
Attorney Shortridge declared that If this
course were to be pursued he would intro
duce about 1900 documents viewing the
receiver through different spectacles.
Emanuel S. Straus was called to testify
that he had signed a petition to retain
Sheehan at the request of Secretary
Palmer of the bank. He understood al
the time he was acting in the interests oil
the depositors.
From George B. Conant, a member of the
depositors' committee, Attorney Short
ridge endeavored to draw the fact that
Watt had been paid $3.50 by the Kansa.
City Real Estate Association for an ex-
tension of their indebtedness of some
$35. 900 to the bank.
Kahn asked If this transaction was
recorded in the bankbooks.
'Oh, no." replied Attorney Shortridge,
"These things are never set down in
books"
Judge Daingerfield desired to know il
Judge Hebbard was to be connected with
this transaction.
Attorney Shortridge replied that he had
been challenged to prove shortcomings on
the part of Sheehan and Watt, and he &C.
cepted the challenge. Judge Hebbard
might not know of all these things. He
might even be above reproach and yet BIZ
the unconscious tool of the men who
were manipulating the bank. The record
went to show that Sheehan and Watt
were juggling the banks assets to their
own interests, and Hebbard should have
seen these things. though possibly he did
not. At any rate, he was warned against
and advised of Sheehan's doings.
Benjamin F. Lucy was then called, and
Kahn declared he was willing to waive his
hearing il he was to corroborate McCar.
thy's evidence.
Judge Daingerfeld inquired if Lucy wa.
to tell anything new.
II do not know" answered Attorney
Shortridge.
The court made an arbitrary ruling that
Lucy could not be heard unless it was
first ascertained if he had any new facts
to relate, in spite of Mr.. Shortridge's pro.
test, and the case went over until this
morning.