1030. California Safe Deposit & Trust Company (San Francisco, CA)

Article Text

Attorney John L. Flournoy was called for, but could not be found. Kahn was for preventing Flournoy from testifying if his story was simply to corroborate the narratives of Committeemen McCarthy and Conant relative to Sheehan's management of the bank's assets. Judge Daingerheid was for ruling that if this was the case Flournoy need not be heard. Attorney Shortridge, however, curtly informed the court that he would exercise his right to have his witnesses sworn. By stipulation Thomas Mahoney, William Harris and William Quatman were excused 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 attending a transaction between the Kansas City Real Estate Association and the bank, in which Watt was paid $250 for an extension of time on the association's indebtedness of $35,000. Another protest went up from the Hebbard faction. Judge Daingerfield asked if it was proposed to prove that Judge Hebbard knew of this transaction. "We are accused," said Attorney Shortridge, "in our alleged libel of saying that Judge Hebbard's inaction caused widows and orphans to lose money. We are prepared to show that the assets of this bank were depreciated. 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 it be true that through Sheehan there was a loss to the depositors, and that this was done after Judge Hebbard had been advised of and warned against his servant's doings, by open letter, resolutions and petitions, we may contend that he is morally responsible for the losses of the bank." "Do you know if Sheehan, as receiver, drew money without an order of court?" Kahn interposed an objection with success. 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 Daingerfield would fain grant his request. "Do you know if Receiver Sheehan drew money from the bank's assets before authorized to do so by either Judge Hobbard or the board of directors?" Kahn was shocked again, and the court poured more balm in his nerves by refusing to permit Williams to answer the question. It was slow work, but Attorney Shortridge finally drove a center shot when he inquired from Williams if he thought that Judge Hebbard was aware of these facts. "Certainly," was the reply. "Attorney Bartnett, in behalf of the California Safe Deposit and Trust Company, objected to allowing Sheehan money in his court." Assemblyman George W. Dixon was called to give the details of a certain interview between himself and Attorney Watt in the Union League rooms at the time Dixon was selected as a candidate for director by the depositors. "Did Watt ask you to retain him as attorney for the bank?" queried Attorney Shortridge. Kann 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 himself—that he would see that the injunction was not modified, and that the old board would not be allowed to resign?" The reply to this Hebbard's attorney managed to prevent. Dixon could not remember if at this time Judge Hebbard had been asked to modify the injunction allowing Directors McDonald, Jenkins, Strauss and Boushey to resign, as they desired to. Watt's 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 he was a particularly warm friend of Judge Hebbard, and that unless he was provided for he would use his influence with the Judge to prevent a modification of the injunction?" This was a red rag to Kahn and Hebbard, and a lively wrangle ensued to prevent Dixon giving his reply. Judge Daingerfield finally sustained Kahn's objections and Dixon was dismissed without further examination. Judge S. C. Denson gave some side lights on a transaction between himself and the bank in September, 1894. Judge Denson, as attorney for the Lower Kings River Reclamation District, got a judgment in default of unpaid assessments, amounting with interest to about $2500, against a Mrs. Humphreys. About the same time the bank foreclosed a mortgage for $20,000 on the same property. The affair was arranged amicably by selling the property for the amount of the two claims. Judge Denson related that after the bank failed he settled his claim for $1800. Attorney Shortridge was anxious to show that the books of the bank showed that $2500 had been diverted to pay the reclamation judgment, but again Kahn threw himself in the breach, and the jurors will have to wait another day to learn what became of the difference between these two sums. The refusal of Hebbard's attorneys to cross-examine Livernash at the appointed time was the cause of much confusion. Attorney Shortridge expected that this work would occupy the entire afternoon 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 Watt's attempt to swing the physician's influence in favor of himself and Sheeban. "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 a director in the bank if the injunction was modified so as to allow the old board to resign?" "Yes, sir." "Did Watt ask of you your vote or influence in Sheeban's favor if elected?" Kahn objected. "Did he say that unless you did consent to act favorably to the interests of Sheehan and himself he would 'see to it that his influence with Judge Hebbard would prevent the injunction being modified?" Kahn again made a protest and Judge Daingerfield would not allow the question. The case goes on this morning, ing it, further inquiry along these lines ceased.