The San Francisco call., 1910-03-23
SCORES MOTIVES IN
OCEANIC BONDCASE
Attorney Argues That Rudolph
and Gus Spreckels Have Ute
rior Purpose in Dispositions

Attorneys in the suit brought by Ru-
dolph and Gus Spreckels in an effort
to have the Union trust company re-
moved as trustee OF the s2.5Oo,OO0 bond
issue of the Oceanic steamship COM
pany, argued all yesterday before
Judge Murasky in an attempt to dispel
the fog of ultratechnical legal issues
that have resulted from counter efforts
on each side to secure depositions from
the opposing parties.
Although the issues presented were
far from settled. the preliminary points
of controversy were thrashed out and
the main question concerning the
rights to secure dispositions was sub
mitted to the court for decision. At
the same time Judge Murasky ruled
out certain motions made yesterday
morning in behalf of witnesses on the
ground that only the actual parties to
the main suit were qualified to raise
the contentious.
WITNESSES MOTIONS DENIED
The argument began yesterday morn
ing on the motion of the Union trust
company, the Oceanic steamship COM
pany and John d. Spreckels and other
defendants 10 dismiss the order requir-
ing the defendants to submit TO the
taking of their dispositions by Attorney
Matt Sullivan. representing the plain
tiffs. With this was coupled argument
on similar motion by the defendants.
asking for an order instructing wit
nesses for the other side to allow their
dispositions to be taken by the plain
tiffs.
At the outset of the consideration of
the above motions, Attorneys Brobeck
and j. j. Dunno. representing the de-
PENDANTS. filed similar motions in be-
half of each of the seven witnesses sub
penaed by the plaintiffs for dispositions
It was these motions that Judge Mu-
rasky denied on the ground that only
parties to the suit. and not mere wit
nesses. had the right to interpose mo-
tions The defense excepted and re-
served the right to appeal from this
decision
UBTERIOR PURPOSE SUGGESTED
In response to the motions of the
defendants for the dismissal of the
deposition order directed at them and
asking for an order directed TO their
opponents, Attorney Sullivan moved to
set aside these motions. 1t was on this
basis that the argument yesterday be-
gan.
Briefly, SuI1ivan's main contention
was that the motion of the defendants
to take depositions of his clients and
witnesses failed to make any showing
that such dispositions were necessary.
On the other side. it was argued by
Dunno and Brobeck that they had the
right to take the dispositions for the
purpose of showing that SuIlivan's
original attempt to secure dispositions
from the side of the defense was a
mere fishing expedition into private
affairs for an Interior purpose not con-
nected with the merits of the case.
GOOD FAITH Is QUESTIONED
Dunno declared that good faith. good
conscience and cleanliness of purpose
were prime requisites of one seeking
equitable relief. He asserted that the
purpose of the defense in asking to
secure counter depositions was to show
that the plaintiffs. Rudolph and Gus
Spreckels, were acting in bad faith He
added. moreover, that if the bad faith
were shown ii must deprive the plain
tiffs of relief in the suit itself, as well
as in the taking OF dispositions. The
dispositions sought by the other side.
he said, were being taken unfairly
and for an Interior purpose.
Sullivan declared that the bad faith
of his clients had not been shown. and
that a mere allegation to the effoct
that they were acting in bad faith was
insufficient Brobeck said that the
question before the court was not
whether a showing had been made. but
whether the defendants Were 10 be al.
1oTrad m, ma lzf fIre Si1oxr-is.r