The San Francisco call., 1895-05-21
ASSUME THE AGGRESSIVE.
Claus Spreckels and His Wife
Sue Rudolph for an
Accounting.
sTUNG BY HIS INGRATrTUDE
The Ingrate's Income Depended
on His Fathers In
dulgence.

Claus Spreckels Sr and his wife have at
last turned upon their ungrateful off
spring. Yesterday they brought suit
against Rudolph Spreckels for return
and accounting of 5000 shares of Paauhau
Plantation stock, valued at $500,000, and
yielding a monthly income OF $4,000.
This is only the natural sequel of the
litigation set on foot by Rudolph and his
brother, G. A. Spreckels. in combination,
to vex, annoy and harass their parents.
For the past year and a half unwarranted
and unnecessary suits have been brought
against their aged father and mother, who
endured them for time and acted
only on the defensive. Finally patience
ceased to be a virtue, especially when the
annoyance eliminated last Friday evening
in an outrageous attempt 10 impede the
trip to Europe for the health and pleasure
of their father and mother and sister. 1t
was this last act of ingratitude that brought
the long-suffering father and mother to set
on foot litigation to cut off the income
and fortune of their migrate son.
Almost the last instruction left by Claus
Spreckels Sr. to his attorneys, Delmas d
Shortrldge, was to commence this lltlga-
ton. 1t will be followed by other aggres-
sive actions calling the sons 10 further
financial reckoning with their father.
Briefly stated, the suit Instituted yester-
day will turn the tables on the young men
and relegate them to the position of depen-
dency whence they were raised by their
fathers indulgence. The law is quite
clear as to how this may be done. For
instance, in regard to this stock which is
claimed by Rudolph, it appears that
Ill, 90 l., L,
father about two years ago and
has since remained in his name. But
the delivery was not made with the con-
sent of Mrs. Spreckels and she has decided
that the time has come to demand its
recall. Probably, had the sons not COM
menced to vex and harass their father, the
$500, 900 might have remained with Ru-
dolph indefinitely. But not content with
hints, Rudolph Spreckels has openly allied
himself with @. a. Spreckels in the process
of goading their father past endurance,
and it has been from the income of this
very stock in dispute that the sinews of
their untilial war have been secured.
The stock in dispute was community
property. AS the complaint says with
some unconscious pathos: 1.-The said
plaintiffs, Claus Spreckels and Anna c..
Spreckels, are and for more than forty
years last past have been husband and
wife" The property was accumulated as
a result of hard work and thrift. 1t was
.intruSted to one of their sons, who has
never known what it is to save and toll,
and who, as a rich mans son, turned
against his loving parents. The mother
has determined to restrain her wayward
son and withdraw his resources, which he
was misusing, to the annoyance and in
jury of those to whom be owed all that he
possessed of the good things of life.
The law provides that no community
property can be given away by the hus-
band without the written consent IF the
wife. Any such purported delivery of
property is absolutely void. This has
been decided in innumerable cases OF
alleged transfers, OF dowers, homestead,
etc. Therefore, when Mrs. Spreckels recog-
nized that the sons, whom she and her
husband had enriched, had reached the
limit of ingratitude, she said that they had
also reached the limit of their power to
harass their father. The sons had only re-
ceived the stock a short time, and already
Mrs. Spreckels heard they were hypothe-
eating and incumbering the hard-earned
fruits of their fathers toll.
In accordance with this determination
to take decisive action with their mis-
guided and headstrong children, Mr.. and
Mrs. Spreckels yesterday filed the follow
ing suit:
In the Superior Court of the City and County
OF San Francisco, State of California.
Claus Spreckels and Anna c. Spreckels, his
wife, plaintiffs, VS.. Rudolph Spreckels, de-
fendant. Complaint.
The plaintiffs above named complain of the
defendant above named. and for cause of ac-
ton allege:
That the said plaintiffs, Claus Spreckels and
Anna c. Spreckels, are and for more than forty
years last past have been husband and wife.
II.
That on or about the 31st day of July, 1898
the said plaintiffs owned and ever since have
owned, as husband and wife and as commun-
ity property, 5000 shares of the capital stock
of the Paauhau Plantation Company, a cor
laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom (now known as
the Hawaiian Republic) and doing business as
such corporation in and upon the Hawaiian
Islands.
That said 5000 shares OF the said capital
stock of said corporation was on said last
named date and ever since has been and still
is Of the value of $500 900, and the same was
on said date evidenced by certificates Nos
-. -. of the said capital stock of said corpo
ration.
That said 5000 shares of stock of the said
Paauhau Plantation Company, and the whole
thereof, was upon said 31st day OF July, 1898
and ever since has been and still is the com
munity property of said Claus Spreckels and
his wife, Anna C. Spreckels, the plaintiff.
herein.
That said stock and the whole thereof wa,
upon said last-named day in the custody an6
possession of said plaintiff, Claus Spreckels, II
the City and County of San Francisco and was
then and there held and possessed by him as