The San Francisco call., 1910-01-12
ARGUMENTS CLOSED
IN SPR[Ck[LS CASE
Judge Murasky Takes Matter
Under Amusement; Will Give
Decision at Later Date
Attorneys BrObeck and Sullivan
Make Strong Closing Ap-
peaIs for Clients

Arguments in the contempt proceed
Spreckels in connection with their suit
against the Union trust company and
the Oceanic steamship company were
completed yesterday before Judge Mu-
rasky and the case was taken under
advisement by the court.
The action for contempt was heard
on the refusal of John d. Spreckels
l. w. Hellman Sr. and other officers of
the Union trust company and the
Oceanic steamship company to answer
certain questions put to them in con-
nection with the taking OF their depo-
sitions before a notary public. The
refusal was based on the ground that
the particular questions asked were H.
relevant and for the purpose of inquir-
ing into private business affairs of the
companies in question
Attorney W. j. Brobeck, representing
the defendants in the contempt pro-
ceedings, continued his attack on the
methods employed by counsel for plain
tiffs in an effort to bring the matter
before the court He summed up the
proceedings TO show that the require
ments of section 1891 of the code of
civil procedure had not been complied
with, and in answer to the contention
of Attorney Matt l. Sullivan that the
section is unconstitutional he went into
the history of the section to prove that
1t was merely an express statement of
an old practice.
Brobeck declared that the question
of the relevancy of the questions asked
was a matter to be determined only
after the point at, issue had been de-
cided. He declared that the inquiries
directed to the witnesses called before
the notary amounted only to search
into the private affairs of the com
panies with which they were connected
and that in all proba bility the depo-
sitions never would be used if the case
came to trial.
The purpose of taking these depo-
sitions evidently is to find out the facts
upon which we rely in answering this
suit and to undermine our position by a
prior knowledge of the stand we take
None of these witnesses is either old
or infirm, and there is no reason to be-
lieve that any of them will fail to ap-
pear as witnesses before the court
when the case comes to trial"
Matt /. Sullivan repeated the salient
points of his former argument, assert
ing that the section of the code pre-
scribing procedure in such cases was
unconstitutional, but that even if it
should be held constitutional its pro-
visions had been complied with An
order to show cause, he said, amounted
to the notice called for by the section
and the copy of the proceedings had
before the notary was in effect no
tarial certificate of facts.
Sullivan summed up his argument
with the assertion that decision in
favor of the defendant witnesses would
amount to ''trifiing" with the court and
would reduce the procedure of taking
depositions to a farce.
1T is duty the court owes to the
preservation of its own dignity to pre-
vent such trifiing." he declared. Your
honor. should adjudge these men guilty
of contempt and should instruct them
that further refusal to answer would
result in their Imprisonment. There is
no reason why the procedure in such a
case should be different than in any
other, just because these individuals
are men of wealth. They should be
forced to give their depositions just as
though it were John Doe or any other
ordinary person called to do the same.
Your honor should be even more par
ticular to impress upon such a man as
Mr.. Hellman the enormity of his Of
fense.
-'He is man who thoroughly under,
stands the law, who appreciates it's
meaning and has daily contact with at
torneys. Such men should not be al
lowed to overthrow the ordinary course
of procedure, but should be made to
obey the provisions of the law the same
as any ordinary individuals"
Judge Murasky announced that he
would take the case under advisement
for decision at a later date.