The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-04-06
FILES A new AFFIDAVIT,
Rudolf Spreckels Casts More
Reflections Upon His
Father.
OVER THOSE PAAHAU SHARES.
Proceedings to Dissolve an Injunc-
ton Against the Nevada
Bank.

The case of Rudolf Spreckels against
the Nevada Bank was continued yesterday
in Judge Sanderson's court and developed
the existence of some sense of wrong still
ranking in the mind of Rudolf Spreckels
against his father, Claus Spreckels.
The case came up on a motion to dissolve
a preliminary injunction issued at the in
stance of Rudolf Spreckels against the
Nevada Bank to restrain it from trans
ferring certain stock to a company in
Hawaii. The bank desired to transfer the
stock from Rudolfs name to the Hawaiian
company in order to protect it as collateral,
fearing that Rudolf's implication in the
recent troubles in Hawaii might endanger
the securities. Rudolf had protested that
there was no implied agreement that the
stock should not be transferred from his
name, and it was to the question OF this
implied agreement that counsel specially
addressed themselves yesterday. E. P.
Cole appeared for Rudolf Spreckels and
Delmas & Shortridge for the Nevada Bank.
J. D., A. B., Rudolf and G. A. Spreckels
were in court, the two first as attorneys in
fact in the transfer transaction for their
father.
Besides Rudolf SpreckeIs' reliance upon
llS dSTtSIHeul, ne ytStcIody h1OO
a new affidavit denying in strong terms
that he had been implicated in the Ha-
waiian revolution, and declaring that 1.-THE
contest between G. A. and Claus SpreckelS
and the collaterals to secure it were only
transferred by Claus Spreckels to the de-
PENDANT to enable him to have the stock
of atfiant changed in the books OF the COM
pany, and the purpose OF defendant IN
trying to violate the agreement entered
into between plaintiff and said Claus
Spreckels is to assist, aid and abet the said
Claus Spreckels in the performance OF his
threat publicly made that he would yet
ruin and destroy affiant and break him and
to give said Claus Spreckels control over
the corporation. That said Claus Spreck-
els is trying hard to iniure the credit OF
atfiant to prevent the payment OF the debt
of G. A. Spreckels when it falls DUE"
This affidavit was introduced late in the
afternoon after counsel had stated the case
and testimony had been introduced by
both sides. Attorney Delmas opened with
a review of the circumstances leading up
to the suit. He said that about a year ago
certain transactions between Claus Spreek-
els and G.. A. Spreckels had led to the
transfer of certain property from father to
son, and in security OF repayment q. a.
Spreckels had pledged certain stock to his
father. Rudolph Spreckels, as part surety
for his brother, had pledged to his father
5000 shares in Paahau Plantation Com
pany stock in Hawaii. This transaction was
consummated last year, being evidenced
in a formal written agreement or contract.
Among the securities for the repayment
were the 5000 shares of Rudolf, now worth
$500, 0O0 which were transferred to the Ne
vada Bank. Subsequently, about the fast
OF the year c. A. Spreckels paid the first
installment of his debt and was given back
half his security, including $500 shares of
~ D. afot ct0 ~
bank heard that Rudolf Spreckels had be-
come implicated in the Hawaiian revolu-
ton, and to protect itself proposed to send
the remaining $500 Paahau shares to the
Hawaiian Islands to transfer them to the
company there and thus complete the
pledge. Now Rudolf claimed he stood in
danger of irreparable injury by the trans
fer.
Mr.. Delmas referred to the allegation of
Rudolf Spreckels that parole agreement
had been made qualifying the written
agreement as improbable. He said it was
vouched for by the plaintiff alone, while it
was denied by Claus Spreckels, J. D.
Spreckels (attorney-in-fact for his father
and by the Nevada Bank. 1t was contrary
to law and common-senSe that men deal
ing in hundreds of thousands of dollars
should reduce an understanding to solemn
written agreement and then qualify or
annihilate it by an oral agreement
Attorney Cole, for Rudolf Spreckels, then
gave his version of the affair. He said that
on January f. 1894, Claus Spreckels had
made over property of great value to his
son, c. A. Spreckels, to be paid for in two
years. Rudolf Spreckels possessed 5000
shares of Paahau stock, which stood in the
name of Claus Spreckels in the books of
the company. Rudolf claimed that he had
put up this stock as security for his brother
on condition that his father transfer the
shares to him and they be retransferred to
his father in blank on the understanding
that they should not be transferred out of
Rudoifs name until after the maturity of
the debt of O. A. Spreckels. This agree
ment was collateral to the written con-
tract. The security was assigned to the
Nevada Bank in December, 1894. Of the
debt 1851, $50 had been paid and as much
remained due in 1896, being fully secured.
But in the meantime the bank threatened
to send this stock, part of the security, to
Hawaii for the purpose, Mr.. Cole said, of
preventing Rudolf from voting the same
and put him to expense. This proposed
move would also deprive him of the right
to redeem his Indebtedness at any time
as the contract allowed.
Delmas denied that there was any inten-
ton to prevent Rudolf from voting the
stock and SAID a proxy was at his service
if he desired it.
Then testimony was called as to the
alleged parole agreement. Charles S.
Wheeler, one of the attorneys for G. A.
Spreckels, and w. S. Goodfellow, attorney
for the bank, thought that such an agree
ment might have been understood after
the execution of the contract But John
f. Bigelow, vice-president, and |. w. He'll
man, president, of the Nevada Bank, John
D. Spreckels, A. B. Spreckels and Samuel
M. Shortridge, all of whom were called.
were equally positive that no such agree
ment had been made, or that if it had been
made, it was with the express qualification
that it was dependent on expediency.
'There should be no further transfers I'M
less it should prove necessary" was the
understanding.
Then Attorney Cole argued on the law
of the subject, and the case went over until
this morning.
TNUESTTGA TTNn nAUTo