The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-04-10

There was no private account. 1t was the ac-
count kept by the refinery.
Was there any assessment levied on the STOCK
of that corporation during that perlou!
There was not.
Did you have occasion to borrow any money
during that time?
l cannot state at this particular period.
frequently had to borrow money, both Tor my
self and my father ,
How long was it after your father returned
to Philadelphia that you rendered your reslg-
nation?
Four or five days.
Did 70 u notify your father before rendering
! your resignation, and if so, how?
notified him in person and subsequently IN
writing. November "a, 1891, is the date OF
my resignation, when l wrote to him saying:
Dear father: The other day you Said that my ex-
PLANTATION to what became of the money PAID by
| the Havemeyers perfectly clear TO you. This
afternoon Adolph informed me that the matter was
clear you and that you had instructed him to
investigate further into the matter. He lnsinuates
that have stolen the money and says that for my
own justification it was necessary to make
a detailed statement. All that l can say is that
every cent that has ever passed through my hands
| is still there. II my earnest endeavor to settle
everything as amicablv as possible and resign my
position only after you had become familiar with
many of the details of the company, but can no
longer remain in office to be thrown into contact
with him. who is evidently determined to put me
under a cloud and bent on blackening me In your
eyes in order that might part with an unfriendly
feeling He is not satisfied with the breach he has
caused in our business and family relations, but
now StOops TO this base and cowardly accusation.
1 therefore enclose herewith my resignation.
have always worked in your interest faithfully,
honestly and conscentiously as any man could,
and no one deplOres more than do the way things
have turned. In conclusion want TO say that
part with the best feeling toward you, knowing full
well that you are being wrongfully Influenced
against and that in time you will see things in
a different light. Your loving son, Gus.
Then followed further questions as to
whether Claus Spreckels had not asked for
more definite accounting for the money
that had been placed in Gus hands, to all
of which the witness replied in the mega
tive, reiterating his former statements that
everything appeared satisfactory to the
elder Spreckels.
The debit and credit standing of the
witness with his father and the refinery
company was referred to. The questions
on this subject elected the fact that the
witness, at the time he left, was indebted
both to the company and his father. Mr..
Shortridge asked:
How much did you owe your father at that
time?
don't recall the amount.
You have charged in your complaint as one
of the slanderous remarks alleged to have been
made by your father, of and concerning you
these words: 81 gave that boy $25 900 year
in Philadelphia and then he drew out $3.50 900
of my money" Do you mean to say that you
did not draw that amount out of banks or cor
porations?
The Spreckels Sugar Refining Company drew
that money out; not !, as an individual.
More questions as to the individual and
personal ownership of the money involved
and the property for which it was an
equivalent were then made, to which the
witness gave the same eYaSive answers as
on the first day of the inquiry. This was
followed by interrogations as to the wit
ness income during and after his sojourn
in Philadelphia. The answers were to the
effect that his income in Philadelphia was
$1,000 month salary as vice-president and
general manager of the sugar refinery,
and that he had no other business transac-
tions in Philadelphia.
In reference to the allegation of SANDER
in the statement made by Claus Spreckels
when speaking of the plaintiff, that che
has wasted money" Mr.. Shor;ridge asked
as to the living expenses of plaintiff while
in Philadelphia. The only answers given
to these questions were to the effect that
the books of the company would show.
He was then requested to furnish a state
ment of income and expenditures while in
Philadelphia, to be prepared and embodied
in the deposition. To this request the wit
kept no private books. Mr.. Shortridge
continued:
Since your return to California have you kept
any account OF income and expenditures?
l have.
Do these books of account show your income?
Do they show your expenditures and the ex-
tent of your assets and liabilities?
They do. l have journal, ledger and a
cashbook.
The witness was requested to either pro-
duce the books named or a statement from
them showing resources and liabilities
This was objected to by Mr.. Ach Mr..
Shortridge explained that the request was
justified by the allegation made in the COM
plant sworn to by the plaintiff, namely,
that he had been slandered by the state
ment made by his father that he would
soon be bankrupt. The purpose of the re-
quest was to ascertain the truth or falsity
of the alleged SANDER.
Mr.. Ach advised his client to not furn-
ish any such books or statement inasmuch
as defendant had not as yet pleaded iusti-
fcation. In accordance with this advice
the witness said he SHOULD decline to furn-
lsh the accounts desired unless ordered by
the court.
Much of the testimony that followed re-
lated to minor specuIations in bank stocks
and other securities, and to sums of money
loaned out ION call' for the corporation
of the sugar refinery, which amounts were
likewise collected by the company.
In the afternoon great deal of the tes-
timony was reiterative of what had been
stated during the forenoon and on Sat-
urday.
were begun in the courts of Pennsylvania
against the American Sugar Company Mr..
Shortridge asked:
Do you remember such proceedings?
1 do, by hearsay.
Did you have any communities ton with the
District Attorney or the States Attorney touch
ing these proceedings commenced against the
American Sugar Refneries Companies?
/ had az conversation with the District At
torney
Did you at that time volunteer any informa-
ton to this gentleman to be used against this
defendants company and possibly against your
father?
absolutely deny it, and say that it is not
true.
Witness was questioned as to whether
he had or had not held conversations with
the District Attorney concerning a re-
opening of the case against the Refineries
Companies on new and important testi-
mony, which might have been furnished
by him &C. A. Spreckels). To this he re-
piled that there had been such conversa-
ton, in a iocular way.
He was asked If he was a stockholder in
the Oceanic Steamship Company, to which
he replied in the affirmative.
How many shares do you own in that?
Three thousand six hundred and thirty.
State how you became possessed of them.
Part OF them bought in the open market.
think had $500 shares as my part in the
division of j. d. Spreckels e. Bros. when /
severed my connection with them.