The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-09-22
BATTLE OVER
SUGAR KINGS
WILL BEGINS
Trust Clause Proves Basis of
Attack on Last Testament
of Claus Spreckels
Imposing Arrays of Attorneys
Open Legal War With
Millions as Prize

Formidable arrays of attorneys rep
resented the opposing litigants in
Judge J. Y. Coffey's courtroom yester-
day afternoon when the real battle TO
determine the validity of the will of
the late Claus Spreckels was begun.
The issue has been Joined on the de-
murrer Of John D. Spreekels and
Adolph B. Spreckels TO the amended
petition Of Rudolph Spreckels and
Claus Augustus SpreckeIs for a par
tial distribution TO themselves as trus-
tees under the alleged trust which the
deceased attempted to create
When he died December 26. 1908.
Claus Spreckels left a Will giving the
widow a life estate in the half which
is not hers by reason of being COM
munity property. At her death, accord
ing 10 the will. Claus Augustus Spreck-
els, Rudolph Spreckels and Mrs. Emma
C Ferris three of the children, are
10 share the property equally. John
D. Spreckels and Adolph B. Spreckels,
for in the viii.
A F. Morrison. of Morrison. Cope &
Brobeck, in arguing the demurrer of
John D. SpreckeIs and Adolph B.
Spreckels yesterday TO the amended
petition for a decree of distribution OF
the late sugar kings estate. estimated
10 be worth from SO. coo 900 to $50 ,000,
GOO. went to the real merits of the
contest by Immediately attacking the
trust clauses of the Will
Associated with Morrison, Cope &
Brobeck for the demurrants were Sam
ueI NJ. Shortridge, Peter r. Dunno and
u. y. Hohfeld. Gushing & Cushing.
William Grant. o. X McMurray and
William H GorriH appeared for the
petitioners. Gorrill announced that he
was present as attorney for Claus Au
gustus Spreckels and Rudolph Spreck-
els as individuals.
SIDEIIGHT OF LEGAL TANGLE
An interesting sideiight on the legal
alignment is the fact that representa-
tives OF the two big universities of the
state are drawn up on opposing sides.
Hohfeld is professor of Jurisprudence
at Stanford. while McMurray holds a
similar post at the University of Cali
fOrnia.
John D. Spreckels and Rudolph
SpreckeIs were the only members Of
the family present in court Each was
fanked by his force of lawyers. Not
withstanding the fact that the present
litigat ton involves millions of dollars
lawyers and newspapermen constituted
practically the entire assembiage yes
terdsy.
The actual fight is being waged on
the demurrer which was interposed by
the contestants 10 prevent Claus Au-
eustus Spreckeis and Rudolph Spreck-
els as executors under the viii, from
having transferred to themselves, as
trustees under the trust which the
viii attempts TO create, a large share
Of the estate. Had the transfer been
made the validity Of the trust would
have been established. ii is contended-
Morrison opened his argument yes
rerdav by explaining that the demur-
rer questioned the sufiiciency of the
trust. He read the viii and then be-
gan TO unfold the general scheme OF
undermining the Instrument under fire
He said he would first discuss the
question as TO whether or not the trust
was valid as TO the real property and
then as 10 whether or not II was valid
IS % the personal property
FIVE DIFFERENT TRUSTS
lie argued that FIVE different trusts
were attempted TO be created by the
will There was one trust to pay the
income 10 the widow. There was an
other trust 10 divide the estate into
three equal parts. The three remain
ing trusts were for the assigning,
transferring and delivering the estate
TO Rudolph Spreckels. Claus Augustus
Spreckels and Mrs. Ferris.
The point was made that the code
ia this state did not permit such a
trust rega riding real property as the
will attempted TO create The de-
cision in the Fair win contest was
cited TO show that the law does not
permit trust TO transfer and convey
real property
In the will of the late Senator James
6 Fair there was trust attempting
10 convey real property. The SUI
prenne court held that to be beyond
the limitations of the law governing
real property trusts. In the Spreckels
will the trust attempts to assign.
transfer, set over and deliver real
property. 1t was argued by Morrison
that the import was the same
when the real property clause was
invalidated in the Fair Will contest the
court held also that while the law does
not limit the nature of a personal
property trust, the one in that case
could not stand, because IL was so de-
pendent on the real property trust
The same contention will be made in
the Spreckels will contest.
Numerous citations were made by
Morrison from California and New
suficiency of the clause attempting 70
create trust of the real property.
Among the California cases cited was
that of the Dunphy will contest. Nor
rison was interrupted by the afternoon
adjournment and will probably con-
sumo the greater part OF today In
concluding his argument