The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-05-02
: Butt Gus Spreckels Claims That
His Damages Were Very
Severe.
HIS FEELINGS WERE INJURED.
INQUIRIES as to Explanatory State
-- -ments Omitted by Reporter
Johnson.

view printed in the Examiner, was re-
sumed yesterday. The plaintiff was oues-
toned by Samuel NJ. Shortridge, attorney
for Claus Spreckels. The examination
was on the line of questions in regard to
the extent of the damages suffered by the
plaintiff. These questions he had pre-
viously refused to answer, but was now
required to respond by an order of court
The inquiry took place before Notary
Public Eugene Levy. The plaintiff was
represented by Attorney Henry Ach.
The trend of yesterdays question
ing seemed to be toward putting the
blame upon the shoulders of the
The fact was elected that no one had
told Q. A. Spreckels and he did not know
that the statements attributed to his
father were really made by him, nor
whether the statements as printed in the
Examiner were not qualified by explana-
tons that would relieve them of the inter
probation put upon them by the complain
ant.
The examination was opened bv Mr..
6hortridge, who asked Mr.. Spreckels if he
still declined to reply to the questions
which the Court had ruled he need not an
sweF. Mr.. Ach objected on the ground
that the question was direct violation of
the stipulation. Mr.. Ach insisted that all
questions that the defense wished repeated
should be asked seriatim.
.. Except the questions unanswered" he
said, "the defense has concluded the ex-
animation. I wish to inform the witness
that he IS not expected to answer any cues
ttons save such specific questions as the
court ordered the witness to answer"
NlE. Spreckels replied that he rested on
the instructions of the court. Mr.. Short
ridge then asked:
You have alleged, MIR. Spreckels. that the i'm
mediate result or effect of the utterance of the
words "he has wasted money" has injured you
In your reputation as manager of this Plsnta-
:t1on Company, and you have fixed your dam
you have suffered any damage?
MI. Aoh-The witness is not compelled to
testify as to any specific damage; special dam
ages are not pleaded. The words spoken of the
witness in connection with his occupation are
actionable per sc, taken together with the Ian
guage pleaded. And in connection Herewith
the words that "he will soon be bankrupt
I viii therefore instruct the witness that he
need not answer the question unless he so de-
sire.
Mr.. Spreckels declined to answer. Later
tie question was repeated, and though Mr..
Ach objected, the witness replied:
I am general manager OF the Hawaiian Com
meTcial and Sugar Company, which company
has great many stockholders here and else
where. The position of trust which I held for
my father was known to every one. The effect
Of his saving that had wasted money would,
therefore, naturally reflect upon my manage
ment. I know that would not have him say
1t for S100, 600 or more.
Mr.. Shortridge-You did not OCCUPY any con-
hdentlal relation with your father as his man.
ager or agent at the time these words are al
legged TO have been uttered, did you?
Heretofore 1 had for many years.
But did you at this particular time?
No. sir.
You say that the use of the words, "He has
wasted money" affected your position as man
ager. Point your finger to the damage,
Mr.. Ach objected that his client had
been injured, not by that expression alone,
but by the additional statement He will
soon be bankrupt Mr.. Shortridge how
ever, insisted that he wanted to Know in
how much the plaintiff considered himself
damaged by those particular words, and
Mr.. Spreckels at length answered:
AS stated before, having occupied posi-
ton OF trust for my father, one is in a-better
position to know of these things than he is
Coming from my father such q statement
would naturally hurt me. I would not have
had him say it for 100000.
But yeu have stated in your verified COM
plant that the utterapce of these words has
caused you damage to the extent of $780, 900.
What did you mean by that?
Mr.. Ach explained to the witness that
Mr.. Shortridge wanted TO ascertain whether
he (Mr. Spreckels) could point to any spe-
ctfe damage. The question was repeated
and the witness replied:
DID 1t damage you TO the extent of 81?
An objection was interposed by Mr..
Ach. He insisted that the words quoted
were slanderous in themselves and there
fore must have damaged his client. He
said that the court had directed the wit
ness to answer that particular question
seleIy to permit the jury to estimate the
extent OF damages above nominal dam
ages, Mv. Spreckles answered:
It.unquestionably did.
Howl
Coming from the source it did.
To whom was 1t uttefed2
To reporter, q Mr. Johnson. do not know
his frst name nor where he is now.
Where was he when these words were said to
have been uttered in his hearing?
do not know.
g. YOU have alleged that it was on or about the
Esd day Of March. Did you know that to be
saw the publication of it.
But you allege Claus Spreckels, your father,
in the presence and hearing of blank Johnson
uttered certain words. Did you know that to
be true or did you swear to it on general prin-
cipies?
knew it to be true from information and be-
What information?
FROM infosmation I gathered from the Ex-
aminer. do not know where the words were
uttered. They were uttered by him.
) So you were informed?
Yes sir.
Were you not informed where the interview, |
If any, took place?
believe it was at his house.
And uttered merely to the reporter only?
/ was not told and do not know who was
present.
You were told the time of the interview, were
you not2
am not sure as to that
Who informed you about this ? What is the |
source of yoar information on which you base |
positive allegation?
Mr.. Williams OF the Examiner.
Did they tell you it was in a room where the
two were alone 4?
No, sir.
DID they tell you anything about the con-
versatlon that is alleged to have taken place
fendant2
Yes, sir. Mr.. Williams stated that he had
aseertalned from the reporter Mr.. Johnson,
that the words were spoken by my father to
him.
Did you see Mr.. Johnson and have him verify
the statement?
did not
Have you ever talked to Mr. johnson in re-
gard to it?
I had no interview with him either before or
after filing the complaint,
2? So that your positive allegation was based nm !
information received from Mr.. Williams?
Yes understood that he was Mr.. Johnson's
employer.