The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1893-12-12
(Co,uuuedl
Ror IN the spreekeIs FamiIy.

Row in the SpreckeIs Family
There il litigation in the family Q
Cisus Spreckels, the sugar king c
A. Spreekels, the youngest son, ha.
begun it BY filing s complaint sgaius
his father, Claus Spreckels, charging
that the latter has conSpired with
John D. and a. B. Spreckels and other
directors Of the Hawaiian Commercial
and Sugar Company to crowd the
plaintiff and other stockholders out Of
the corporation Allegations Of fraud
70 secure the desired end are made,
with various revelations in connection
with the business Of the sugar CON-
pany.
Claus Spreckels and the two elder
sons are asked to pay S2,500,OO0 to the
corporation as damages for their
fraudulent conspiracy, and demand
is made upon the Court for an iDjune-
ton to prevent the carrying out Of the
plans.
h. NJ WoolIey Is associated with c.
4. Spreekels IS 3 plaintiff, he holding
five shares Of the capital stock, while
the latter claims to hold go shares
Philip y. Lilienthal, Of the Anglo
Californian Bank, and Meyer Ehr-
man. another local capitalist, are
made defendants in the suit, SIS they
hold s mortgage On property Of the
company, and the plaintiffs want an
Injunction to prevent foreclosure al
leging that such sction is eontem-
plated as s part Of the fraudulent
scheme to require possession Of stock.
". D. K. Gibson and n. II. Weed,
two Of the directors are also named
as defendants, but in the complaint
they are declared 70 own no stock,
being merely dummies in the hands
Of Claus Spreckels and the two sons
associated with him.
c. A Spreckels claims that he owns
800 shares Of the capital stock Of the
company, 200 Of which stand on the
books in the name of Claus Spreckels,
Dodge, but that the directors have re-
fused 10 transfer the shares TO him,
pursuant 70 the fraUdule It conspiracy !
to gain control Of the stock
On May %, 1855, the co npany issued 4
100 bonds Of 5000 eSch, under date Of 4
April ], ISIS, and on the same date de-
hvered to Philip y. Lilienthal and
Meyer Ehrman 8 mortgage TO secure
the payment Of the bonds. These
bonds were all sold TO Claus Spreck-
els, who now holds more than two
thirds, 200 having been cancelled.
The bonds are 10 mature on April !,
1895, drawing : per cent. Interest
meanwhile.
It Is alleged that no legal meeting
OF the stockholders was ever held to /
authorize the bonds, that the required
tvo-thiIds Of the stock was not repre-
scented BY the men who issued the
bonds or the mortgage deed, that no
certificate in the matter Of the bonded
was ever filed by the
chairman or secretary Of any directors
neeting, and that no such certificate
was ever filed in the County Clerks
office.
Claus Spreckels, it is charged, had
full knowledge Of the facts.
It was unnecessary, the plaintiffs
continue, to issue the bonds, and that
seton was taken merely for the pur-
pose Of acquiring control Of all the
stock. In carrying out the cOnspir-
aey, it is charged, Claus Spreckels
caused John A. Buck TO pretend
TO loan $4,000 to the company, and
that the money that Buck pretended
to advance was in reality loaned by
Claus Spreckels to his own company,
the transfer Of the money being made
through Buck.
Further, the three Spreekels de-
iendants spent $50 coo in unneces-
ssry improvements st Hawaii, and
$4,000 for the purchase of unneces-
szry stock, the object being to use up
the funds so that there might appear
10 be s lack Of ready funds. Stock in
other corporations was bought for the
same purpose. In October, 1892, il was
pretended that the company could not
pay interest on its bonds, with the in
IGNITION Of foreclosing, to the injury OF
The other stockholders.
IiIienthal and EhrInan, il Is chaTg-
cd, have been requested by the Spree
kels defendants to institute in Hawaii
4 suit to foreclose the mortgage they
hold, so that the property can be
bought for Claus, J. d. and A B.
Spreckels, there being no law in
Hawaii by which such g fraud could
be prevented The property so mani
Dulsted would amount to S4,000,0O0.
The Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar
Company, as shown by the plaintiffs,
possesses assets of s., $50, 900, as fol-
lows:
Real estate. S77O, 800 90
Tools, etc....-.--..-...........-- 49, Is, 35T 50
Horses and mules $500. ...... 4l,37I 66
Furniture...--.............-..-.-- 1850 50
BuOys, lighters and harbor
frontsge, -. - s,267 IS
Water riqhts 1856 -
Buildings & Improvements 26S,S00 s.
Steam plovs........- 2SI5A .
Mn buildings .......-..--. Loss, 40 SO
The Construction Ae-
-enein0 S9,2ss .
The stPuu Meme reservoir 1856 %
rhe scotch Mill. $50 90
re Vaghsa Oitrh I7I,9g7 81