The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-05-02

So e1 mat III puDIlc and for public print
Mr.. Shortridge moved that this portion
OF the answer be struck out as not respon-
slve and proceeded to question the witness
as TO his reputation as a business man,
winch Mr.. Spreckels assured him had
never before been assailed. He was asked,
aIter pelng requested to leave the wounds
lnflcted to his personal feelings out of the
question:
=, DID you experience any loss OF confidence on
tne part or your stockholders or the stock
were manager?
That. is Impossible to say. I did not go
around and question them how they felt
about it.
The witness admitted that he had not
oeen called on to resign from his position
as manager of the company. Neither was
he aware of any movement on the part of
the stockholders to remove him from the
pace. The directors, he said, had not
taken any action that would iniure him in
a monetary sense, nor had any of his or
the company's creditors made demands
upon him because of the words alleged to
have been uttered by his father. He said
1t will be necessary for moneys owe to be-
come due before can be called. upon to pay
them Besides, the principal creditor is Mr.
Claus Spreckels, himself.
The witness said that it would be i'm
possible for him to state how far-reaching
the utterances of his father might have af-
fected his credit. Mr.. Shortridge said:
But you have not based this damage upon
your general credit? AS l understand you
claim to have been injured in respect to your
Office in this company. Is that so?
But the company is conducted by myself and
people might be very 10th to extend credit so
long as remain general manager.
Mr.. Shortridge insisted that the COM
plant was not made for injury to the in
dlvidual, but to his office as general man
ager. The plaintiff, he said, would be
injured in his office by the directors who
placed him there and asked
Narrowing it right down, have you then
| been deprived of any of the emoluments of
your Office by the utterance of these words?
Mr.. Ach objected, but the witness
| answered:
Not as yet. The directors have taken no ac-
ton in the matter, and 1 am not aware that
any movement is being contemplated by the
stockholders.
Mr.. Shortridge asked if any one had told
the witness that the words, He has wasted
| money" referred to money belonging to
the stockholders.
81 have had no talk with Mr.. Williams
on the subject" was the answer, "bdt the
general Interpretation put on them was
to that effect"
''But," said Mr.. Shortridge, "you allege
that others placed that Interpretation on
| the words to your I'M ury?"
81 believe that others have"
| The witness was asked to name some
person vino had so construed the words
| He answered that no one had spoken to
him about the matter, but he believed that
was the Interpretation that others had put
on it.
Mr. Shortridge questioned Mr.. Spreckels
1 l. 1
| the alleged slanderous words. He replied
that he had never asked whether there was
any one else present or not, and Mr.. Short
ridge asked:
How do you reconcile that with the slate-
ment in the complaint that the defendant ut
tered those words in the presence of other per-
sons than Mr. Johnson?
He certainly stated it for publication. He
spoke to a reporter, which was practically
speaking TO every one.
How could Mr.. Johnson as an individual, or
how did he, interfere with your business and
injure you in monetary way?
1t is impossible for me 10 say.
Have you felt any effects in the way of none
tary damages from the utterance of these
words?
may have suffered damage without know
ing &i it; vor .,r.-. 81 .nv s,oo 900 a.n,ao -
the time that you swore to this complaint?
Again the witness gave the answer:
father say that for any $500 900, or more than
that.
This Mr. Shortridge moved to strike out
as before, on the ground that it was not
responsive. He turned to that portion of
the complaint in which $500 coo damage is
claimed for the words, He will soon be-
come bankrupt in his credit and reputation
as merchant" Reminding the witness
that he stated that this damage had been
incurred on the day the complaint was
made, he asked if he had sworn to that as
a matter of form or because he had suffered
the damage in point OF money.
The witness could not specify any dam
age. He stated, however, that he consid-
cred his reputation in the community far
exceeded that amount.
The plaintiff was questioned at length in
regard to what he considered damages on
account of the purported interview, and
was asked if the publication in the Exam
iner was the main cause of his complaint
To this question the plaintiff responded
that he considered his father, Claus
Spreckels, to be the person directly re-
spensible for whatever injury he had sus-
tanned