The San Francisco call., 1909-11-13
FATHERS INTEGRITY
ATTACKED BY SONS
Rudolph and Gus Spreckels
drilled by Attorney for
Union Trust Company
Executors Accused of Misrepre-
senting Deed of Trust for
Steamship Bonds

Sidney Nj. Ehrman, attorney for the
Union. trust company, in forceful ar
gument yesterday in Judge Murasky's
court. ripped to shreds the complaint
fled by Rudolph and Gus Spreckels as
executors of the will Of Claus Spreck-
els in an effort to have the Union trust
company removed as trustee of the
Oceanic steamship company. He turned
the original complaint into a BOOM
erang by showing that its omissions
made a far stronger case for the de-
fendapt bank than its allegations did
for the plaintiffs.
Ehrman's argument was in support
of a demurrer to the complaint filed
by the executors. He brought forth
facts and figures to prove that the
Union trust company had at no time
been negligent in its position as trustee
under the s2.5OO,000 bond issue made
by the Oceanic steamship company IN
1893 but had carried out the trust
faithfully in every detail and declared
that the complaint was little more
than a subterfuge intended to en-
barrass the proper execution OF the
company's affairs.
NEGLECT TO STATE FACTS
In connection with the allegation of
the original complaint that no interest
was paid on the bonds of the Oceanic
steamship company on January l or
July l, 1909, Ehrman pointed out that
the plaintiffs had deliberately neglected
to mention the fact that the deed OF
trust itself made this mandatory IN
case a ma jority of the bond holders
instructed 1T to waive any interest pay
ment. Furthermore, he asserted that
this allegation was direct attack upon
the business integrity of Claus Spreck-
els by his own executors, Rudolph and
Gus Spreckels. who were supposed to
be acting in good faith to carry out
the wishes of Claus Spreckels, who had
signed waivers of an identical nature.
DEED QUOTED IN PART
In attempting TO establish their case
the plaintiffs have really established
our case" said Ehrman. by clipping
isolated clauses from the deed of trust
they have attempted to show that the
Union trust company has failed to do
certain things which the deed requires
IL to do: but the corresponding clauses
in the deed which have been omitted
from the complaint would have shown
the court that in certain events the
bank is not compelled to do those
things. For instance. the plaintiffs set
forth that no interest has been paid
on the bonds for the six months from
January l to July l. i 909. and complain
that the Union trust company as trus-
tee has not forecIosed on the security
for the bonds and sold it. But the
complaint does not set out, which is
fact. that a majority of the bond hold
ers requested the company 10 pass the
interest for the six months. This the
deed permits the bond holders to do"
DEFENSE RELIES ON DEED
Ehrman said that there had not been
a single violation of the trust on the
part of the Union trust company. If
the full deed of trust We're annexed to
the complaint instead of portions of
il being cited. he said he was confident
The reading of the deed by the Judge
would constitute the best defense to
the action that could be made.
In regard to the allegation that the
Union trust company was negligent in
not insisting that insurance on the YES
sells Sierra, Sonoma, Ventura and Ala
media was maintained, Ehrman asserted
that the trustee was under no obliga-
ton to maintain insurance or see that
ii was maintained.
The plaintiffs make general allega-
tions that they were injured. but the
facts show that they were not damaged
in any way" the lawyer stated.
SECURITY DECLARED GOOD
The security for the bonds is good,
and the assets are away beyond liza
bilities. The plaintiffs under decisions
of the supreme court would aver par
ticular unlawful acts on the part of
the trustee. but this they have not at
tempted to do"
Attorney Matt ]. Sullivan, represent
ing the plaintiffs. Rudolph and c. A
Spreckels, said that he would require
two hours to answer the argument of
Ehrman. The case went over to next
Friday morning for that purpose Ehr-
man said he might wish to say some
thing further at that time<
You will want to make your argu-
ment all over again when 1 get
through" Sullivan declared.
Attorney W. l. Brobeck, represent
ing the Oceanic steamship company
also argued in support of the demurrer
that if the entire deed of trust had
been introduced it would have consti-
tuted an answer to the complaint