The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-11-20
RobertfP. and c. S., Executors of
Their Mothers Estate,
Victorious.
DECISION BY JUDGE HUNT.
Result of a Suit Arising Out of the
Sale of a Brewery to a Big
English Syndicate.

After a trial lasting nine days Robert
P. and Charles S. Wieland, executors of
the estate of their mother, Sophie Vie
land, who died in 1891, won an important
victory in Judge Hunts court yesterday.
The long-pending suit brought by the
estate of John H. Wieland, deceased
against the estate of Sophie Wieland
ended by a verdict in favor of the latter
estate.
The suit grew out of negotiations sur
rounding and leading up to the sale of the
John Wieland Brewery to the English
syndicate in 1890. From the testimony it
appeared that in 1889 there were nego-
tiations looking to q purchase of the
Wieland Brewery, and that contract was
entered into on October 16, 1882 with Ed
ward Fairweather of London whereby Mrs.
Sophie Wieland and her children agreed
to sell the property for $2,900,O00. This
contract was modified by later contract
with the same gentleman, dated December
g, 1889. However, after much time spent
and any amount of negotiations, Mr.. Fair
weather failed to carry out his contracts
and the sale of the welEknown brewery
fell through. Later on, in $780, the Eng
lish syndicate, which now owns this and
and ultimately purchased the Wieland
Brewery. The contract under which the
brewery was sold called for 81, 400, 600
900 in bonds and 81 400 900 in cash,
less certain large, indefinite amounts due
creditors of the brewery.
In a case which has been on trial before
Judge Hunt and Jury 1t was claimed by
the widow of John II. Wieland that
Sophie Wieland promised to pay her son
some $4,000 out OF her share if he would
join with her in agreeing to sell the brew
cry. After the sale OF the brewery both
Sophie Wieland and her son, John Henry.
died, so that the suit was brought by the
estate of the one against the estate of the
other. r. ". Heut and George Lezinsky
represented the plaintiff, and Samuel NJ.
ShOrtridge appeared for tue defendant.
The real plaintiff was Mrs. Emma Zelt-
ner, formerly the wife of John II. Wieland.
This lady now resides in New York and
came here specially to prosecute this liti-
cation.
Mr.. Shortridge, speaking for the de-
PENDANT, in an eloquent and powerful ar
gument maintained that Miss Sophie VIE
land had never made a promise TO pay
John H. Wieland $15, 900 or any other sum,
and that the "claim" presented against
Der estate was wholly without merit. He
paid touching and beautiful tribute to
that charitable lady, and argued that had
she made any promise to her son she
would have lovingly and gladly observed
it. The jury took this view of the matter
and by their verdict decided that no such
promise or contract as alleged was ever
made or entered into by Mrs. Wieland.
Throughout the trial it was apparent
that Robert and Charles Wieland were
moved by the praiseworthy desire to de-
fend the character and memory of their
dead mother. They and their sister, Mrs.
Frank ?. Sherman, said they had no per-
sonal luminosity toward Mrs. Zeltner, the
plaintiff, but opposed her claim be-
cause they knew their mother had never
made the contract alleged.
My mother loved John Henry, as she
loved all her children said Charles
Wieland last evening. "and if she had
promised to pay or give him $4,000, or
any other sum of money, she would have
done it. We knew and Mr.. Shortridge
knew from my mothers own lips that she
had never made any such promise as was
sought 10 be proved, and therefore we
have defended and l am happy to say
have won this suit. We are grateful for
the verdict of the jury, for it is vindica-
ton not only of ourselves but OF our
mothers character"