The San Francisco call., 1910-06-11
JOHN D. and A.
SPRECKELS TELL
OF SIRE'S GIFTS
Late Claus SpreckeIs Did Not
Wish Wealth to Go to
Rudolph or Gus
Petitioners TO Base Contentious
on Transfers as Advance
ments in Terms of Will

The sentiment with which the late
Claus Spreckels regarded his sons, Ru-
dolph and Gus, was shown yesterday by
the testimony Of John d. Spreckels and
AdoIph b. Spreckels in Judge Coffey's
court, when they declared that in max
ing them gifts of property and money
their father had said that he had done
so because he did not wish his estate
or money to so TO Rudolph or Gus.
What statements, If any, did your
father make as to these transfers 70
you2' asked Attorney Peter /. Dunno
OF John ID. Spreckels.
My father, in making the gifts,
was the answer. said: i make these
gifts because 1 do not want Rudolph
or Gus TO get any Of my money or es-
late These were in effect his words
during The early transfers, but 1 have
heard him tell my mother the same
thing repeatedly. He was very anX-
ious TO let ii be understood that he had
siven us the gifts, and would make
memoranda OF them, notifying his book
keeper at the same time 10 make the
transfers on the books
CORROBORATES TESTIMONY
The testimony OF AdoIph Spreckels
was TO the same effect. It was only
after an argument between Attorney
Dunno and Attorney Charles :. Whee-
Ter, the latter representing Rudolph
and Gus Spreckels, that ii was allowed
Wheeler objected at every turn, but
was overruled.
The case before the court is the hear
ing on a petition 10 have the estate
distributed among the heirs. The petit
tion was made by Gus and Rudolph
SpreckelS, who wish TO bar their broth
ers. John ID. Spreckels and Adolph
Spreckels, from sharing in the estate
maintaining that the last named re-
ceived their portions Of their fathers
wealth during his lifetime.
The question has narrowed itself
down 10 the point as to whether these
transfers and conveyances were gifts
or advancements Of their share of the
estate. Rudolph and Gus Spreckels
hold that they were adVancements, and
Adolph and John ID. Spreckels maintain
that they were gifts. pure and simple
CONTENTION OF PETITIONERS
Ia support of the declaration of his
clients Attorney Charles 5. Wheeler
pointed yesterday to the clause in the
viii in which il was stated by the
father that be left nothing to Adolph
and John ID. Spreckels because he had
provided for them during his lifetime
1t is on this clause that the fight is
being made TO bar the two from shar-
ing in the property. And this will was
declared invalid by Judge Coffey 4
short time go
Nheeler's argument was to the effect
that transfers had to be considered as
adKancements because they had beer
expressed TO be such in the VIII. He
cited cases by which he endeavored tc
show that a statement in writing de-
claring a transfer to be an advance
mcnt need not he cOntemporaneo with
the act, and il is evident that this
viii be one Of the grounds on which
he viii be opposed, as the viii was
made many years after the transfers
took place. In pursuing his argument
Wheeler delVed into the common law
barking back 10 the customs OF Lon
don and York. He spoke all afternoon
and his citations included many old
English cases.
Some Of the leading attorneys of the
san Francisco bar are engaged in the
case. Peter i. Dunno. A F. Morrison
w. l. Brobeck and Samuel NJ. Short.
ridge acting for Adolph and John D
Spreckels. and Charles : Wheeler and
Cushing A. Gushing for the other side
EACH POINT CONTESTED
From first TO last each point wa.
bitterly contested. Wheeler objected
frequently, but most OF his objection.
were overruled. The morning session
was devoted TO the attorneys agreeing
upon the amounts received by Adolpl
and John d. Spreckels. for the Dur.
pose o. having 2 basis on which Il
argue. Wheeler's claim is that tn,
Two received s5 per cent Of the estat,
= il was At the time of the transfers
% and that this amount aggregated II
principal and interest more thar
So .00O. .000.
The questioning Of Adolph and Johr
ID. Spreckels was brief being devoted
exclusively TO the statements made b,
ffle father when he gave them tn,
property.
The case viii be continued next Mon.
day morning, when the attorneys fol
Adolph and John ID. Spreckels viii re
ply 10 Wheeler. il is expected thaf
they viii conclude their arguments tn,
same day and the case viii then be pu
in the hands of Judge Coffey for ad
judicstion.
On account Of the arguments in thi,
case the hearing in the De Laveaga viii
case viii be put over till the day fol
lowing.