The Hawaiian gazette., 1877-11-14
Supreme Court of the Hawaiian Is.
lands, October Term. 1877.
BERNARD and RAMON as. LOO
NGA WR ct al.


This is an action Of Tort, in which damages
are claimed of defendants for their causing PLAIN
tiff garden to be overhowed with water backed
up by defendants dam. The jury returned a
verdict of $1,000. the full amount claimed, which
the Court Is asked To set aside as being Excess
slve
] recognize q distinction between actions for
injuries to persons aud those for mi uries 10 pro-
perry. In the former class ot cases, it circum-
stances OF aggIavatlon exist there Is no liked
rule Of compensation, and the jury are authorized
10 give vindictIve damages Courts are loath to
disturb such verdicts.
In trespasses to property, however, unless
special misconduct or aggravOlon appear, there
is fixed standard by which the damages can be
computed, which lie, actual compensation TO the
party injured.
The Court in this case charged the jury that
this was the principle on which their verdict
! should be based, and this was not excepted TO
by the defendants counsel. They cannot there
fore now claim in order to justify this verdict,
| that this case came in class between those in
which vindictive damages can be claimed and
those where no evil motive is complained of.
Exemplary or vindctive damages were not
claimed by the plaintiffs.
! Actual compensation for the loss and injury
sustained was all they asked for, ami this alone
| could they recover.
| The Jury had very little exact testimony before
| them but the evidence of Mr.. PIERCE was, that
in his opinion the value of the place was dimin.
ished one half by reason oil this injury. Colonel
Jones testifes that he thought it would cost
$4,000 TO bring such u garden into existence in
the condition that il was before the flooding
took place.
To apply the rule of compensation to this, the
portion OF the testimony most favorable TO the
plaintiff the Jury would not be authorised TO fiud
verdict for more than $1,000.
The area submerged bore small proportion
to the rest of the garden. much less than out
half. The plaintiff Ramon says that it cost hiu
$1,000. spent in drbets, to prepare, plant anG
cultivate the whole garden.
/ am aware that the jury were allowed to con
slider what the injury, in addition to the value o
trees etc destroyed was to the residence of thu
plaintiffs by reason OF the swampy and msasma
lie condition OF the garden induced by the over
flow, but it seems to me that this was all con
sidered and summed up by Mr.. PIERCE when he
testified that the value Of the place was dimin
ished one half"
verdict for 81 OOO could have been sustain
ed on the evidence, though in many opinion
lesser sum than this would have compensated
the plaintiffs fully,-any SUN over this Is cearl
excessive.
II the plaintiffs elect to reduce the verdict t.
$1,000, they may have Judgment for that amour
they TO make their election not later thai
twenty days before the next term and notify th
clerk Of the same. Otherwise new trial vii
be ordered. A. Francis JUDD,
Justice Supreme Court, presiding at Oct. Term
A. 5. Hartwe for the plaintiffs, f. Preston
and C. Brown for defendants.
Honolulu, Nov. l. 1877.