The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1913-05-27
SPRECKELSHE|RS
SCORE VICTORY
BY DECISION
Supreme Court Sets Aside
Decisionof Judge Cooper
in lmpoI tant Suit

Entirely reversing Circuit Judge
Henry l. Coopers decision of last
January, when the will of Claus Sprecs
els, the deceased sugar magnate, was
overruled, the opinion of the supreme
court of California overridden, aud
John d. and Adolph b. Spreckels Al
lowed to share equally with the other
three children in the distribution of the
S50O,000 estate situated in Hawaii, the
supreme court of the Territory yester.
day morning handed down decision
which holds the last testament of the
sugar king valid and ordered judgment
against the two sons ignored in the
will.
But the adverse decision of the high.
est court in the Territory will not put
the quietus or the last hopes of the
two brothers, according to their attor.
ney, Robbins b. Anderson of the firm
of Prosser, Anderson 4 Marx. The
case, as il affects the Hawaiian prop.
critics, will probably be carried to the
Supreme Court of the United States,
possibly within thirty days.
"While the territorial supreme court
did not follow the exact reasoning OF
the supreme court of California, - said
Mr.. Anderson last night, ait reached
the same conclusion, essentially
The supreme court of the Territory
arrived at its conclusion by an i'm
plicit following of the precise wording
of tile will of Claus Spreckels. 1t held
''that the words in a will are pre-
sumed to have been used in their pri-
mary and ordinary sense; that of two
reasonable modes of construction, one
Of which will lead to intestacy and the
other to a valid disposition, the latter
will be accepted and that an estate or
| interest given is to be regarded as
vested unless it clearly appears that
a contingent estate or interest was in
| tendedD
Contention of plaintiffs.
] The attorneys for John ID. and
| Adoph b. Spreckels based their claim
| to share in the estate on the grounds
| that the wording of the will made an
intestacy contingent as to the real
estate in Hawaii. They held that IT
would require an indefinite length OF
time to partition the estate according
to the terms of the will. Such period
they claimed, would cause the estate tc
be illegal under the law against per
petuitics. And if the provisions of tn,
will were thus rendered illegal and void
John d. and Adolph b., Spreckels were
| entitled as direct descendants of the
sugar magnate to share pro rata with
the other three children in the estate
estate.
This contention was held invalid BY
the supreme court of California. Th'
brothers then transferred their activi
ties to the courts of the Territory il
an effort to acquire title to a share IL
the 100000 estate located here. LAS
summer two suits were instituted by
them against the direct beneficiaries OF
the will and against c. Brewer g. Com
pany. The circuit court, in jury
waived trial before Judge Henry n
Cooper, granted the opponents of the
will an equal share with the heirs IL
the division of the property. The de
cison of the supreme court yesterda,
vacates the verdicts of the lower cour
1 and favors the direct deviseees of thu
will, ordering Judgment against JOIN
d. and Adolph b. Spreckels.
California Case not Affected.
1t is said this decision will not affect
in any way the ruling of the supreme
conrt of California on a similar case
Estate of Spreckels, 162, Cal. $50.
Il The high court of the Territory felt
that it ought to follow the decision OF
the California supreme court "be
cause it is intrinsieally sound and
Just. 4" But this was not allowable a
the law of the Golden State materially
, differs from the law of the Territory
There the creation of trust to con
vey real property to benefciaries i,
prevented by statutory provisions
Therefore, the territorial supreme court
held that "thc construction and effect
of this will, and the validity of it,
provisions with respect to the land il
, dispute must be determined with ref
, erence to the law of Hawaii, ant
this court must examine the will t.
r ascertain the ntention of the testat,l
and give effect to that intention If II
be not repugnant TO the law of thi!
J jurisdiction irrespective of what llal
/, have been held in California"
Appeal Is Probable.
There is said to be one loophole a,