The San Francisco call., 1910-02-02
COURT SUSTAINS
DEFENDANTS IN
OCEANIC CASE
Murasky Denies Petition OF Ru-
dOIph SpreckeIs TO Have
Brothers jailed
Witnesses Have Right to Resis:
Efforts to Pry Into Their
Private Affairs

- In 4 brief decision rendered yester-
day. djscharging an order for l. "
HeIman. John d. Spreckels and other
witnesses in the case of Rudolph and
Gus Spreckels against the Union Trust
company to show cause why they
should not be punished for contempt
OF court, Judge Murasky fully sus-
tanned the position taken several
weeks ago by these witnesses and JUS
Jifed their refusal 10 answer interro-
cations without d hearing before the
court.
Judge Alurasky upheld the constitu-
tionality OF the section of the code OF
civil procedure upon which the wit
nesses relied in their refusal to an
swer certain questions before a notary,
and swept aside as untenable the con-
tentions Of counsel for Rudolph and
Gus SpreckeIs BY this decision the at
tempt Of Rudolph and Gus Spreckels
TO have John D. Spreckels and l. w.
Helman jailed or otherwise punished
Tor an alleged contempt ends in COM
plete failure.
The action for contempt grew out of
the suit brought by Rudolph and Gus
Spreckels TO have the Union Trust
company removed as trustee of the
bond issue Of the Oceanic Steamship
company. As preliminary to the
actual hearing of the case, the plain
lifts secured an order for the taking
Of dispositions of certain witnesses
connected as officials with one or the
other of the defendant companies.
WITNESSES REFUSED TO ANSWER
On the advice of their attorneys,
John d. Spreckels and l. W. Hellman
refused 10 answer some of the ques-
tjOns asked them before notary. on
Yhe ground that an attempt was being
made by the plaintiffs to pry into pri-
Aate affairs having no bearing on the
merits of the case. The refusal only
went 10 the point that answers would
not be given until the relevancy of the
questions asked had been settled by
the court but in spite Of this the plain
1ifs secured an order directing the
witnesses TO show cause why they
should not be punished for contempt.
it was this order which Judge Murasky
Yesterday dismissed as unwarranted.
During the argument several weeks
ago, attorneys for the defendant wit
prescribed in Section 1891 of the code
of civil procedure had not been COM
piled with, and that the witnesses
could be punished for refusal to an
-sWer questions only after having been
directed by the court 10 do SO. Attor-
hey Matthew l. Sullivan. representing
Rudolph and Gus Spreckels, argued
that the section in question was un-
constitutional and demanded a judg-
ment OF contempt.
Defendants JUSTIFIED
Judge Murasky's refusal to commit
the witnesses for contempt amounts
10 complete justification of their re-
fusal TO answer under the conditions
which existed. It accords them the
right to secure the courts advice and
ruling IS 70 the relevancy OF questions
asked before answering them. and puts
the stamp Of approval upon the course
taken by them.
IT Is probable that an effort will now
be made to have the proceedings be-
fore the notary dispensed with and
mat Judge Murasky himself will be
asked 10 preside over the taking of the
dispositions and to rule upon each oues-
uon as il is presented
: = The decision of the court, given by
9udge Murasky in dismissing the con-
tempt proceedings, was as follows:
1. The provisions of section
1891 Of the code Of civil procedure
constitute but reasonable regula-
ton OF the power Of the court 10
punish for disobedience of its or,
-iers and are not only constitu-
uonal, but are in conformity with
the practice that had obtained prior
L9 the enactment of the section
The legislature can not deprive
courts Of their inherent powers
put II may regulate or provide a
powers, so long as il confines IT'S
self within limits consistent with
the preservation of the authority
OF courts 70 enforce such reSpect
their ,Vigor and efficiency"
ENTITLED TO HEARING
,. 1t may be conceded that under
many circumstances an order to
show cause is the equivalent of a
notlce, and that the issuance of
such an order may be a compliance
with statutory requirement for
The serving of notice: but the
order in this case is something
more than A mere notice. The very
purpose Of the notice required by
section 1891 is to provide for a
hearing wherein the witness may
be given IN opportunity to shoW
why he refuses to answer If his
refusal be upon the ground. as
here, that he believes the cues
tions to be irrelevant to the issue.
Lue statute contemplates that he
shall have a hearing to have his
contention determined. In the or
der to the witness. however di-
recting him to show cause why he
should not be ordered to answer
the questions. il is decided that
All Of said questions so put to
and asked OF said witness" were
proper and relevant questions-the-
very thing to be passed upon AT
the hearing. ] do not think the
order TO show cause is such a no.
tice as is prescribed by the statute.
3. The section must be CON
strued reasonably and with a view
10 effectuate it's purpose and from
such a construction IL will appear
that when the witness is ordered to
answer a question he must answer
all questions embraced within the
subject of the one to which he is
directed TO reply.