The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-12-07
A POINT FOR PLAINTIFF.
An Important Issue of Wide.
spread and General Interest
Involved.
RIGHTS OF MARRIED WOMEN
All the Technical Objections Raised
to the Original Complaint Have
Been Met.

Upon motion of Samuel NJ. Shortridge
of the firm of Delmas & Shortridge, at
torneys for Claus Spreckels and his wife,
Judge Slack made special order yester-
day continuing in force indefinitely the
injunction issued last May restraining
Rudolph Spreckels from disposing of the
stock in the Paauhau Plantation Company,
claimed by Mr.. and Mrs. Spreckels.
This was a strong point in favor of the
plaintiffs in the celebrated suit, and is
indirectly in the interest of every woman
in California who is, or who hopes to be,
married.
1t was claimed by Rudolph Spreckels
that in 1898 Claus Spreckels, his father,
made him gift of half million dollars
worth of stock in the Paauhau Plantation
Company, despite the fact that the law
then required that gifts of community
property could be made legally only with
the consent of the wife in writing. This
stock, it is alleged, was then part of the
community property OF Claus Spreckels
ana his wife, Anna c. Spreckels, and she
has never gwen her consent in writing or
in any other way to the alleged gift. In
fact, it is claimed by her attorneys that
there was no gift, by reason of the law re-
ferred to.
Suit was therefore commenced last May
in the names of Claus and Anna G.
Spreckels TO require udolph to return
this stock. After considering the COM
plant Judge Slack granted an injunction
restraining Rudolph from selling or dis
posing of his stock.
- Aofa Il %
return so valuable a holding without a
bitter fight and raised all sorts of tech
nical objections to the method of the pro-
ceedings.
Great interest has been exhibited in the
case. not only on the part of the women of
the State, but by attorneys generally, and
by all persons interested IN the banking
and loaning institutions of California.
The questions involved are also of interest
to every purchaser of real estate, and to
all who have large dealings of any nature.
Heretofore, the rights of married women
in the community property acquired by
themselves alone, or IN connection
with their husbands, have been
considered of so indefinite a character that
even in cases where the law has expressly
provided that the signature of the wife
small not be necessary, every lawyer OF
standing and ability. every banker and
every careful buyer of real estate has re-
necled with the transfer Of property.
The attorneys for the plaintiffs claim
that the section OF the code which es-
pecially provides that husbands shall not
give away the community property with
out the written consent of the wife is not
only a just and wise provision for the pro-
lection OF married women, but one
framed and binding to establish their
rights 1t is this law that is being at
tackled by Rudolph Spreckels as an uncon-
stitutional and unjust law.
The many technical objections raised to
the first complaint in this vastly interest
ing suit seemed to be fully met in the
amended complaint, which was filed
yesterday.
Briefly the new complaint alleges that
Claus and Anna c. Spreckels were married
in 1852.
On July 81, 1893, they owned and as is
claimed still own 5000 shares OF stock OF
the Paauhau Plantation Company, a Ha-
waiian corporation. Claus Spreckels ap-
peared on the books as the owner of the
stock. On the day named Claus Spreckels
Endorsed the certificates Of stocks in blank
and transferred them to the defendant
without any valuable or other consldera-
ton These certificates the defendant sur
rendered to the corporation and had new
ones issued in his own name. According
TO the laws of Hawaii and the company's
articles of incorporation a transfer of
stock may be made in this way. The de-
livery of the stock, however, was made
without the knowledge or consent of Anna
c. Spreckels, and the defendant never paid
anything to either of the plaintiffs for the
same.
Anna C. Spreckels never gave her consent
in writing or otherwise TO the delivery
transfer or gift of the stock, and never rati-
fed or sanctioned the action of her
husband in the matter. At the time
of the transfer the stock was
yielding large DIVIDENDS and continues TO
do SO. These dividends, amounting to
about 5000 monthly, the defendant col
lected until restrained by the order of the
court on May IS, 1895. As the pre-
tended owner OF the stock the de,
fendant continues to hold possession and
and appropriates the dividends to his own
use. He now threatens to sell the stock,
which is now within the jurisdiction of the
California courts, to parties in HAWAII and
in case it is sent out OF the State 1t
will be lost to the plaintiffs and
they will be obliged to go to Honolulu and
prosecute suits there in order to recover
the stock in question or the proceeds OF its
SALE The stock IN question is valued Mt
$500. 900. The court is asked to restrain the
defendant from sending the stock or any
portion of 1T out of the State, and to order
It's return to the plaintiffs without delay !;
and further. to give a full accounting OF
all the dividends received by him.
Upon reading the amended complaint
Judee Slack made the order continuing
the old Injunction in force pending the
suit, which, as one well-known attorney
said Yesterday, ''means until the rights OF
the parties are finally determined IN the
Supreme Court"