The morning call., 1893-11-25
SPRECkELS' SUIT.
1t EliCitS Criticism of the
Plaintiff.
Claus Spreckels and Two Sons, by
Their Attorney, Express Con-
tempt for the Charges.

AS expected. there now appears to be a
different side to the controversy brought
to light by the suit against the Hawaiian
Commercial and Sugar Company. 1t was
no surprise to the publ that there should
be differences of opinion between G. a.
Spreckels, the laiD,iff, and bis father and
brothers, for such difficulties have cropped
up previously, but the magnitude of the
interests at stake. the specific nature of
the charges and the prominence of the
parties involved, all tended to arouse
wonder that such suit should ever have
been instituted.
1t now appears that though filed on
Monday the complaint was by some means
suppressed until Thursday.
Speaking of the matter yesterday, At
torney Samuel NJ. Shortridge. on behalf Of
the Hawaiian Company, characterized the
action of c. A. Spreckels. the plaintiff, in
bringing the suit. as base ingrutitude.
Instead of threatening his father,
Claus Spreckels, and his brothers, John d.
and A. B. Spreckels. with a lawsuit for
50, SOC. 900 on a cock-and- bull story of rob-
berry he should be congratuialing himself
on their continued kindness to him in the
past"
Mr.. Shortridge admitted that the young
man, who is generally known as Gus"
had called on him once with reference 10
this intention OF his to bring suit. but he
did not believe that be was serious.
II, must be-" continued Mr.. Shortridge,
that this young man Is either crazy or is
being egged on in this matter by bad ad-
visers The suit is brought in the name of
Ii. A. Wooley. but him / regard simply as
beneath contempt.
They have struck the wrong men If
tla,, inI- t,,ttr
Spreckels and his two sons into paying
them money. if that is their object. What
makes me think it must be a case of ex-
tortion is the fact that the filing of the
complaint was suppressed from publica-
tion last Monday and the young mans at.
torneys came to us and proposed to con-
tlnue its suppression II we would settle at
their terms. OF course we rejected such a
corrupt proposal with the scOrn it deserved
There is no use discussing that ridcu-
| ous complaint in detail. c. a. Spreckels
| wishes to force my clients to admit that he
owns certain shares and he takes this way
tn do IL, knowing his own obligations and
those of the company to his fathers exer-
tlons. His father and brothers have con-
| sistently aided him and lie has never before
limited at the least improperly on their
part.
There is nothing to conceal in the
affairs of the company, and, should the
bonds in question. their Issue and all the
| circumstances will be passed upon by the
court. / Will state, though, that as re-
CARDS an annual Meeting not having been
held. it was by G. A. Spreckels' own re-
quest that it was not held"
The main cause of complaint referred to
'the pretended bonded Indebtedness" OF
the company. The defendants were stated
to have willfully caused the Hawaiian
Company to default in p ayment of interest
on the bonds and to have caused Messrs.
Lilienthal and Ehiman 10 bring fore
| closure suit in the courts of the Hawaiian
Islands, thereby endaEgering property TO
| the amount of 50, 100000.
| 2. n. Lilienthal did not deny Yesterday
! that he and Mr.. Ehrman had taken the
action referred to, but stated that they
were not personally interested. They oc-
cupled the position of trustees to the bond
| holders, and were obliged to do as the cou-
| ditions OF their trust required.