The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-05-07
Another Attempt Is Made to
Annoy and Harrass Claus
Spreckels.
THE SUGAR KING UNRUFFLED.
The Ungrateful Son Tries in Vain
to Secure Material for
His Suit.

yesterday before Commissioner Lawler.
Mr.. Spreckels was represented by his at
torneys, Delmas q Shortridge, and Lawyer
Ach, of Rothchild & Ach, appeared for the
complainant.
The intention and object Of the exami-
nation, from start to finish, was an evident
desire to annoy and harass the senior
Spreckels, who has, according to Gus tes-
timony given him (Gus) thousands of dol
lars. 1t was apparent that in reiterating
his rasping and Pathological questions
Attorney Ach was following the instruc-
tions of his ungrateful and impudent young
client.
1t was trying ordeal for a man of the
venerable appearance and personal worth
of Claus Spreckels to be submitted to in
dignities and affronts at the hands of his
own erring son; yet he sustained the bur-
den with the dignified bearing of q phil
osopher. He seemed to contemplate the
proceedings more in sorrow than in anger.
Claus Spreckels was sworn and gave
his name and address. He admitted that
the plaintiff was his son.
Mr.. Spreckels was asked by Mr. Ach If
he had brought with him certain papers.
Counsel for defendant in this case" Mr..
Delmas replied, Estates that no book,
paper, letter or memoranda named in the
subpoena has been brought in, nor will they
be until counsel for plaintiff states the pur-
pose for which he desires such books, etc,
to be brought and such purpose appears to
be proper and lawful one"
Q.-Have you in your possession in the City
of San Francisco, or have You had in your pos
session within the past sixty days. any of the
different books, Journals. cashbooks or ledgers
which were kept at Philadelphia of the affairs
OF the Spreckels SUGAR Refinery and the Spreck-
els Sugar Refining Company?
Attorney Delmas-I instruct the witness to
decline to answer the question, which is imma-
terial to any issue in this case. Al decline
TO answer.
Q.-Have you now in your possession in the
City of San Francisco the caShbook OF the
-Spreckels Sugar Refinery for the year 1891?
Attorney Delmas-Same instructions to the
witness.
book of the sugar refining company covering
the items of cash which were handled by the
Spreckels Sugar Refining Company upon the
sale to Searles & Havemeyer of certain stock in
that corporation?
Attorney Delmas-same directions. Al de-
cline to answer.
ent time any cash books covering the period
when your son, C. A. Spreckels, was in Phlla-
delphia in the years 1892 show1nghis hand
ling of any of your money?
Attorney Delmas-Same directions. A. de-
cline to answer.
Attorney Activity?
sufficiently given by witness counsel now
present.
Attorney Achieve me your reason.
Attorney Delmas-You need not do so, Mr..
Spreckels.
O. Have you. in your possession any cash.
books showing the handling of a particular
sum OF 50 100000 by your son while he was in
Philadelphia?
Attorney Delmas-Same instructions
@. Have you IN your possession any vouch-
ers showing the handling by your son c. A.
a.
delphia?
Attorney Delmas-Same Instructions
Q-Have you in your possession any books,
papers, or memoranda which showed at any
time that your son C. A. drew out any money
from any place whatever?
Attorney Delmas-Same instructions.
Counsel for plaintiff asked whether
defendant possessed any memoranda
Spreckels drew out $3.50 600. This was OBJ
jected to on the same grounds as the pre-
vious questions, and the witness declined
to answer.
Attorney Ach continued:
Q-Do you know Nj Havemeyer?
Attorney Delmas-Same instruction.
Attorney Delmas-Same instruction. Al
decline to answer.
AS each question was put, Attorney Del
mas instructed his client not to reply.
The witness, by advice of his counsel, de-
clined to commit himself to any knowl-
edge of the Spreckels Sugar Refining Com
pany.
Q.-Am I to understand that your declina-
tons to answer are based upon your construc-
ton of the opinion of the court?
Attorney Delmas-Reasons will be given as
occasion requires.
OIL want to know whether these refusals
are made by witness upon the ground that they
may incriminate him. or anything of that kind?
Attorney Delmas-The last remark of counsel
&c rlx-J 00a1l cd fOr nn for ba
witness, declining have hitherto been given
at the proper time and place and shall in the
future be similarly given.
Q.-You say Won knew the Spreckels Sugar
Refining Company Ayes.
Q.-Were YOU a stockholderin that company?
Attorney Delmas-You may answer that ques-
Q.-were you the principal stakeholder
Ayes.
Q.-At the time of the organization of that
company were you or your son c. A. in Phila-
delphia
Attorney Delmas-Is that averred in the CON-
plant?
Attorney Delmas-I shall direct the witness
to decline to answer on the ground that 1t is
not relevant to the case.
Q.-Did not you send your son c. A. to Phila-
delphia to manage the affairs of that corpora
ton?
Attorney Delmas-same direction.
Q.-Was not your vice-president and
manager of that corporation while you were
the principal stakeholder therein?
Attorney Delmas-lS that aVerred, Mr.. Ach?
Attorney Ach-I do not know.
Ayes, sir.
Further questioning took place on the
line of the duties of vice-president and
manager of the corporation. The witness
was instructed not to answer query as to
whether his son c. A. acted as his agent
in Philadelphia, but on the question being
put as to whether c. A. Spreckels, had ever
acted in that capacity for his father during
his residence in Philadelphia the witness
answered Eyes, also that he had given a
power of attorney.
Q-Have you that power of attorney Al
don't think have.
Off you have copy will you produce it?
Attorney Delmas-Same instructions.
Al decline to answer.
Q.-Have you received or did you receive any
letters from G. A. Spreckels while he was your
agent in Philadelphia concerning any moneys
of yours which he had at any time handled?
Attorney Delmas-Same instructions.
Al decline to answer.
In reply to question as to whether wit
ness would produce these letters Attorney
Delmas said:
cat the proper time and under proper
circumstances. if the right to call for such
letters should arise, and the plaintiff has
them in his possession. there will be no
objection. We do not think this is the
proper occasion"