The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-04-14

tempt, to leave the question of relevancy
in the hands of Judge Daingerfield. Claus
Spreckels, the defendant was represented
in the argument by Delmas & Short
ridge and c. A. Spreckels, the plaintiff, by
Henry Ach.
Attorney Ach opened proceedings by re-
ferring to the intimate character of two
questions objected to in the deposition. He
failed to see their relevancy to the present
suit for SANDER. All questions bearing
upon the business relations of G. A. Spreck-
els and his father his client had answered
or was willing to answer. But, Under adj
vice of counsel, hehad declined to &c into
particulars of his early history or of his
personal expenditures after he had severed
relations of a business nature with his
father. This severance of business rela-
tons had occurred in 1891, and since that
his business had been his own concern.
Counsel referred specially to a question
bearing on certain investments and their
amount since he left his fathers employ
in Philadelphia, and, at the courts in
stance, confined himself at this time to
that ISSUE
Samuel M. Shortridge then argued that
the question of the scope Of an interroga-
tory should enter into this question of rele-
vancy. Many questions, which might at
first blush appear irrelevant, were impor-
tant as bearing on the merits of plaintiffs
case. The interrogation had proceeded to
point when it was seemingly getting too
close to the heart and conscience of plain
tiff, and he had then shielded himself be-
meath the objections of his counsel. He
contended that all the questions asked
were material and must be answered at
this stage of the case. Afterward, if any
question appeared irrelevant, it might be
excluded on the proper objection at the
trial, but at this stage of the proceedings
before notary they must be answered.
The contention of the defendants at
torney, if sustained, would utterly nullify
the law of the State or dispositions. 1t was
not necessary for an answer to the COM
plant to be in before these questions were
answered Under such a rule witness
might decline to answer such a simple
question as, What is your name?"
els the taking of a deposition a mere
idle, vexatious thing? Not so; it serves
wise purpose. Not only that plaintiff
conscience may be probed, but contingent
cies of DEATH travel and accident sanction
this procedure. 1t is not a mere fishing for
testimony. The deposition can be used
by either party at the trial, subject to all
legal objections. We can put any ques-
ton such as these to show the inherent
lack of truth of the witness"
Mr.. Shortridge quoted authorities on
these points and to show the Importance
ings was the old "bil of discovery" to
draw out from defendant, or a probable
future defendant, evidence to aid in franz
ing new bill at law. Anything to assist
plaintiff in the cause of action might be
drawn from the defendant, and any testi- |
mony in the knowledge and Keeping of
plaintiff could be drawn OUT of him, al |
though it might expose his weakness and |
exhibit the inherent rottenness and cor
ruption of his cause.
For instance, the plaintiff, c. A. Spreck-
els, has declared, in his complaint, that he |
was capitalist and merchant, and that he |
has enioyed good reputation as man of |
affairs. The counsel contended that his
side had right to inquire as to his reputa-
ton and credit.
''This is not an idle inquiry" concluded
Mr.. Shortridge, "but it is the solemn
knocking at the breast of an adversary and |
asking him, Are these things true?' And
under an enlightened jurisprudence 1t is
sanctioned. AS Mr.. Justice Brewer said,
The truth cannot harm man. and only |
the truth is sought in this case"
ATTORNEY d. M. Delmas here stated the |
contention of defendant. I'VE claim that |
when plaintiff brings an action and we
have put in ali appearance we have right
to examine a witness on any matter" he
said.
After a brief recess Attorney Shortridge |
resumed his argument and citation of au-
thorities These questions were necessary
to show that the case was wholly without
merit, Ubiquitous in character, and would
properly be thrown out; that defendant
might either admit the publication and its
truth or take another course.
The questions as to plaintiffs income
might become most material. That re-
garding his assets and liabilities went to
the very heart of the case, and truthful
answer might show that he was in the
very quicksands of bankruptcy. All ques-
tions were permitted, even if the answers
showed that these accusations were ut
tered under strong, high and justifable
provocation. If a stop was placed on
these answers the statute on dispositions
was made of no effect.
Attorney Delmas then made supple