The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-05-30
TOOK THE COURTS TIME,
G. A. Spreckels Jr. Tries to
Show That He Was With
out Recourse.
He Had Not Asked the Oceanic
Shareholders to Call
Meeting.

The case of G. A. Spreckels Jr. against
the Oceanic Steamship Company to COM
pei the company to hold meeting was re-
sumed in Judge Seawell's court yesterday
afternoon. The annual meeting was held
on January q, 1895, and C. A. Spreckels
Jr. contended that he had attempted to
vote thereat under authority of proxy,
but this proxy he had been unable to pro-
duce.
The defendants had been permitted by
the court to amend their answer by deny
ing the allegation that the directors con-
trolled a majority of the stock, and yester-
day the plaintiff attempted to introduce
testimony to the contrary.
The first witness was John D. Spreckels,
president of the Oceanic Steamship Com
pany, who was asked why he had refused
to call a meeting. An objection promptly
made by S. Nj. Shortridge of Delmas &
Shortridge, counsel for defendants, was
sustained by the court. Attorney Cole, for
the plaintiff, then proceeded to question
the witness as to his allegation upon the
control of the stock. 1t was shown, how
ever, that the books of the company were
the best evidence. Cole argued that the
books did not show the amount of stock
controlled or influenced by the individual
directors. Attorney Samuel M. Shortridge
maintained that the amount of stock con-
trolled was fl xed by the amount owned by
each holder.
Witness John D. Spreckels answered that
he owned the $500 shares standing in his
own name and only controlled that amount
of stock. 1t was attempted to show that
he had controlled the stock of j. D.
Spreckels & Bros. Co. and of his sister,
but Attorney Shortridge objected, on the
ground that control could not be imposed
upon individual directors.
1t was also shown that the only vote
taken at the last meeting was upon the
question of adjournment and that, prop
erly speaking, no stock was voted at ALL
In reply to further questions by Cole, J.
D. Spreckels said that he had represented
the stock of J. D. Spreckels & Bros. Co. on
the occasion of the meeting. He was asked
as to who represented the firm of Goodall,
Perkins & Co. at the annual meeting. At
torney Shortridge objected to questions
prying into the constitution of corpora
tons not parties to the present case.
The court stated that it seemed to him
that the plaintiff need not go into the
inner particulars of the control of the
stock. He should be content to show that
he had tried to secure meeting through
the stockholders and had failed.
Attorney Shortridge argued that it was
not com petent to inquire whether individ-
ual directors held stock under controlled"
conditions or not. The witness said that
he and his.brother owned a majority of the
stock of the ]. D. Spreckels & Bros Co.
he could not tell whose stock stood in the
name Of Secretary Preston of the company.
The witness stated positively that he
had never asked Preston or any other
stockhoider to vote in any particular way
his tifo Ho bod haar9
of discomfort at the meeting on the part of
any OF those present at the prospect of no
other meeting being held, and since the
meeting no one, except the plaintiff, had
made any complaint in the premises.
Attorney Cole then attempted to ascer-
tain what stockholders the plaintiff could
have succeeded in persuading to call
meeting. Attorney Shortridge objected
strongly to any such inquiry as hypotheti-
cal and to questions as to individual hold
ers as calling for the opinion of the witness
on a problematical event. The objection
was sustained.
The court again animadverted on its
time being taken up in immaterial discus
slons. The only issue was whether the
defendants controlled more than half the
stock, SO that request on the part of the
plaintiff to the stockholders to hold meet
ing would have been idle. The question
was not as to the past control, but the pres
ent control of the stock.
The witness stated that he would have
objected to holding meeting had he been
asked before the commencement of the
action as far as his individual stock was
concerned. AS to any other stock he
could not say what he might have done.
In reply to Mr.. Shortridge, the witness
stated that he represented the J. D.
Spreckels & Bros. Co. at the meeting
IN a general way, and did not hold the
trm's proxy nor authority to vote it's
stock. The Oceanic Steamship Company
had been in existence for twelve years and
had never had any trouble in its board I'M
til one G. S. Wheeler, not bona-fide
stakeholder, had been placed on the board
by the plaintiff
G. w. Weed, E. H. Sheldon and J. II.
Manuels, stockholders of the j. D. Spreck-
els q Bros. Co., were placed on the
stand and questioned as to the control of
the stock in their name.
Attorney Shortridge then cross examined
Y; A. Spreckels upon the proxy which he
alleged he had lost and the case was SUBJ
mitted, the Judge stating that he did not
expect to be able to render decision be-
tore Monday next.
--->->-"
II