The San Francisco call., 1910-06-15
Peter F. Dunno Uses Their Own
Citations Against Lawyers
for Younger Sons
Wheeler Closes for Petitioners
and Contest Is Submitted
on It's Merits

TO Supersor Judge James V. Cofey late
Yesterday afternoon 1t was Judge
Coffey who declared the will invalid in
so far as it would disinherit the petit
uoners' brothers. John d. and Adolph
Spreckels. and this decision had been
followed by an attempt to have the es-
tate distributed solely 10 Rudolph and
Claus A and their sister. Emma c.
Ferris. on the theory that the other
heirs had already received their share
ia the gifts made years ago by their
late father.
GIFTS NOT ADVANCEMENTS
= In a keen and learned analysis of the
Eases cited in support of the petition.
Peter T. Dunno. representing the in
jured heirs. turned the tables on his
opponents. He showed through these
and citations Of his own that the
properties given by the decedent to
John D. and Adolph Spreckels were
outright gifts. Advanceinents. accord
ing TO the various courts. differ mate
rally from gifts. Dunno showed. They
must be recorded as such by the
donor-otherwise they are gifts. There
must be q simultaneous statement in
writing that the transfer is an ad-
vancement on the heirs prospective
estate. If there is no such record of
transfer, then il is a gift. Even in the
Spreckels will the lawyer pointed out,
the testator spoke Of the gifts" to his
children.
Proceeding to a Michigan case, on
which Wheeler relied heavily. Dunno
explained that therein the court de-
clared as advancements only such gifts
as the testator made record or at the
time and which were proved to be ad-
vancements. The point was further IL
Illustrated by another Michigan case,
holding that the advancement must ac-
uuire that character on its face at the
time Of its making.
RECENT DECISION CITED
Dunno then took up some Illinois
decisions, in which Wheeler found GER
tain phases favorable TO the petition.
One recent case not touched on by
Wheeler related to a man who, three
years after giving a piece Of land to
daughter. stated in his VIII that the
conveyance was in fun payment Of her
claim.
Can an advancement be proved by
written statement Of the donor years |
after the gift2" asked the Illinois judge |
in his opinion, which favored the
daughter.
Wisconsin case which Wheeler 1
held was 'in the teeth Of an impor-
tant California decision was also
turned by analysis against the petition.
only the superficial aspects favored
the advancement theory. Dunno said,
which was not properly a win contest
at all, as the widow concerned had ig-
nOred her husbands Will and demand
ed her share Of the estate as provided
by statute, claiming that the notes
given by her children to their father
were part Of the general estate, as was
her right.
The burden Of proof" said Dunno.
falls On the claimant Of the advance
ment. who must prove his claim by
writing. The character of the trans
fer must be fixed at the time il is
made. You can't disrate an absolute
and unqualified gift as an advance
ment years afterward."
CONTINENTAL SIDE
Although Wheeler's closing reply in
behalf Of Rudolph and Gus Spreckels |
was TO take only Is minutes, as he
snnouced at its beginning. he man
sged 10 use up % minutes of the fore
noon and three and a half hours of
lie afternoon. It largely concerned
he sentimental side OF the case, which,
5e claimed. was an inequitable piece
Of faNoritism. The viii, he said, was
designed to equalize the sums received
oy the children, and for that reason
excluded John D. and Adolph Spreckels.
The dictum, every gift is an ad-
Tancement,' took up at least half of
he argument for the petitioners.
TO be q gift, there must be a de-
livery or an acknowledgment between
1he two parties" Wheeler declared,
FOR your honor knows there is no such
hing as a unilateral gift"
Hartman on contracts which is
castings college. says there is" an
fwered Judge Coffey.
Then Hartman doesn't know the
aw, ] am sure" Wheeler commented.
A curious attempt to make use of
evidence he had objected to caused
passage Of words between the speaker
ind Dunno.
When John. d. Spreckels was on the
tand last week he told Of the trans
er Of the property made to him by
ais father in 1888, at the time the
sther was estranged from the sons
low petitioning. The fact was brought
,ut that the same year the father gave
100000 worth Of electric stock to Ru-
lOlph. But Wheeler. who had objected
@ the entire evidence, prevailed
gainst the admittance of testimony
egarding the latter incident.
GUOTEs THE EVIDENCE
During his argument yesterday
Wheeler read from the courts tran
cript TO show that ]. d. Spreckels
aid that the father intended to cut
rudolph of in 1898, and then stated.
n proof Of the witness poor memory.
hat this could not have been true.
ince Rudolph received a magnificent
lift that year.
Didn't you object TO this testimony"
sked Dunno, in reference to Wheeler's
uccess in shutting out evidence to
he reconciliation of three months that
ad subsequently, occurred between the
ather and Rudolph.
4 did" answered Wheeler
That's all I wanted to know" Dunno
ommented.
Il was agreed between Wheeler and
'ushing & Cushing. for the petition
rs, and Dunno. Samuel M. Shortridge
nd A. G. Morrison for the other side
hat the oral argument should be writ
en- up and submitted TO the judge in
leu Of formal briefs
IDS ON SUPPLIES coEsIDERED-fhe SUPER
rFc hrwo rrSa