The San Francisco call., 1910-05-25
TWO SPRECKELS
HEIRS Hang ON
TO BROKEN WILL
Rudolph and Gus Ask Distribu-
lion That Would NulIify
COffey Decision
Contend That Brothers Received
More Than Share Before
Fathers Death

Replying as individuals to their own
petition as executors Of the viii of
Claus spreckeIs for permission finally
TO distribute the estate. Rudolph and
Gus Sprecl1els. in a specious plea ad-
vanced yesterday in Judge Coffey's
court, practically asked the latter to
nullify the effect Of his own decision
invaiidating the trust clause Of the
viii
Forced by the breaking of the will to
oppose their own original petition for
final distribution. IN which the contest
ants. John d. and Adolph B. Spreckels,
recently Joined, the executors now ask
for a distribution OF the estate on a
plan which would result in practically
the same division Of the property that
would have been made had the will
been sustained in the first place instead
Of being broken.
WOULD SHARE ALIKE
In view of the breaking of the will.
the partition Of the estate under the
original petition for distribution filed
by Rudolph and Gus Spreckels would
naturally be by share and share alike
10 each Of the five heirs, unless Judge
Cofey's decision should be reversed by
the higher courts. In an effort to pre-
vent this however the new suggestion
for distribution was presented yes
terdsy.
The suggestion made to Judge Con- sy
by Attorney Charles S. Wheeler, repre-
senting Rudolph and Gus Spreckels. is
based on the claim that Claus Spreckels.
during his lifetime, made over TO John
D. and Adolph Spreckels portions of his
property amounting to more than S10.-
. O00. 600 each, and that these apportion-
ments were not gifts, but merely
advanced" on the shares to which they
might otherwise have been entitled as
equal heirs. It is claimed also that
this apportiOnment to John d. and
AdOlph Spreckels was charged against
them by their father as ''advancements"
and that documentary evidence in proof
of this fact exists
A. T. Morrison, attorney for John d.
and Adolph Spreckels in the contest
which resulted in the breaking of the
Claus Spreckels viii, said yesterday
that the real question raised by the
new move in behalf of Rudolph and
Gus Spreckels was whether or not the
money and property turned over to
John D. and Adolph Spreckels by their
father during his lifetime was a gift
or an advance" After a consultation
Attorney Morrison said:
ALLEGED ADVANCES
Rudolph and Gus Spreckels now
claim that the sums settled by their
late father some years ago on John d.
and Adolph were advances. They say
these sums were TO be the ultimate
share OF the estate intended for the
recipients. In other words. John d.
and Adolph would therefore be pre-
cluded from getting a further share
The documentary proof which Ru-
dolph and Gus claim to have on their
side is no doubt the clause in the will
in which the father wrote that he had
already given a large part of his
estate to the other sons. But even here
the word given is used, and very pc
culiarly also the sums turned over by
the father TO Rudolph and Mrs. John
Ferris are referred TO as gifts and not
as adVsncements.
'As q matter of fact Claus Spreckels
said at various times prior to the fire
that he had given a large part of his
estate to John D and Adolph for the
very purpose OF precluding the other
sons, Rudolph and Gus, from getting
anything.
OUTRIGHT GIFT
This move is evidently intended to
protect Rudolph and Gus in the event
that the intestacy resulting from Judge
Coney's decision declaring the will in
valid should continue through an opin-
ion by the supreme court sustaining
Judge Coffey. BY having the gifts to
John %. and Adolph declared to be 'ad-
vances.' Rudolph and Gus would get as
much out OF the estate as they would
have received under the will which was
broken. But If our contention that the
sums were outright gifts is proved.
then The claims OF all the heirs would
be equal"
Attorney Charles s. wheeler. who
prepared the answers filed YESTERDAY in
behalf Of Rudolph and Gus Spreckels.
outlined the plan providing for the
elimination Of John d. and Adolph B.
Spreckels from participation in the es-
tate, and formal testimony regarding
the accounts Of the estate was given
by Rudolph Spreckels before Judge
Cofey. The latter. however, was un-
able 10 give the matter full considera-
ton at once. and the hearing was post
poned until June 3.
Through division Of the Claus
Spreckels estate under the statutes pro-
viding for distribution in the event of
4ntestacy. each of the five children
should receive approximately $1,000, 900
after the mothers half had been de-
Quoted. In their answer to themselves
however, RUGOlph and Gus set I'D that
they are each entitled to a third OF
their fathers separate estate, as it ex-
listed al the time Of his death. and that
Mrs Emma c. Ferris is entitled to the
remaining third.
TWO WOULD GET NOTHING
Under this proposed scheme Of dis
tributiOn, John y. and Adolph would
get nothing. for, despite Judge Cofey's
decision breaking the will and making
the estate available for equal distribu-
tion among all five children, Rudolph
and Gus now ask the court to favor
three and eliminate the other two The
sums which il is claimed were given TO
John D. and Adolph in the form Of "ad-
vancements" exceed the shares which II
is alleged that they would have re-
ceived had their father died intestate
and with these amounts set off against
their fifth shares Of the existing estate
they would, of course, receive nothing
II is stated in the answer that if the
estate at present contained all the prop
erty which Claus Spreclzels owned at
the time OF his death. together with all
that he advanced to John d. and Adolph
during his lifetime. each of the five
children would receive. according TO
the laws Of distribution. not more than
$4,000 ,O00
GIFTS ADMITTED