The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-12-12
Hearing Of Rudolph Spreckels'
Motion for Dissolution
Postponed.
ATTORNEY ACH WAS IN HASTE.
Thought That the Large Amount In.
volved Should Have Been Given
Consideration.

Notice of motion to dissolve the injunc-
ton in the suit of Claus Spreckels and
Anna C. Spreckels VS.. Rudolph Spreckels,
involving stock in the Paauhau Plantation
Company, was served by the defendant
upon Delmas & Shortridge, attorneys for
plaintiffs, ON the 9th inst. The matter
came up for hearing before Judge Slack IN
Superior Court Department 10 yesterday
morning, and was, upon proper showing
by Samuel M. Shortridge, of counsel for
plaintiffs, postponed by the court until
Friday, the 18th inst.
Mr.. Ach, counsel for Rudolph Spreckels
protested in the face of the very reason
able presentation made by Mr.. Shortridge
that the matter should be heard instanter,
and seemed unwilling to submit even
when the court had practically expressed
the intention to grant the postponement.
Mr. Shortridge stated that notice OF mo-
ton to dissolve was served upon his firm
on Monday evening, and that all day
Tuesday he was personally engaged in
other matters in the United States Dis
trict Court, while his associate, Mr.. Del
mas, was engaged with his stenographeT
preparing his argument in the Lux-Miller
suit, which ne yesterday presented before
Judge Buck in the Superior Court at Red
wood.
us it your Intention asked the court,
ito argue this motion?'
at is our intention" Mr.. Shortridge
answered, ito argue the case thoroughly
but we are quite unable to proceed on ac-
count of the reasons given. We will be
ready on Monday or Tuesday next, if
agreeable to the court"
Mr.. Ach insisted that the matter should
be heard at once and made small Speech
in which he reached into the merits of the
case, reviewing the recent proceedings and
rulings OF the court. Then he desired to
assert, upon his word of honor as an attor-
ney, 'devoid Of any Interior motive, with
out any desire TO postpone anything or
desire TO interfere with any ones rights,
that counsel for plaintiffs had not made
certain showing" and so on down the
line.
And when Mr.. Shortridge interrupted
him with the suggestion that the counsel
for plaintiff did not desire TO argue the
merits of the motion, Mr.. Ach proclaimed
that this is not the merits. 1t is ques-
ton of our rights" he continued. This
is no child's play. Some learning has
been exhibited. Some attention has been
shown, and l desire now to read this
complaint"
The court was not inclined to hear the
reading of the complaint, but Mr.. Ach
seemed inspired with the desire to argue
the motion then and there, assuming that
counsel for plaintiff had not expressed a
desire TO present anything new.
Mr.. Shortridge reiterated his expression
of such desire and remarked calmly: 1--WE
are not here as rivals in good faith, but
bearing in mind the views expressed by
your Honor in a written opinion which
has been the subject of careful and atteE-
tive examination. We think, not AFRO
eantly, and without an audacity that as
sumes everything, but with some modesty,
and Difference to the opinions of others,
that we have acted in good faith, and now
desire to have this hearing postponed till
Monday"
Mr.. Ach said something about the
amount involved and tied up in this case
Judge Slack promptly stated that this case
was no different from case that might
involve only $50 instead of many thou
sands represented by the stock in the
Paauhau Plantation Company in contro-
versy.
The hearing was continued till Friday