The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1900-08-03
GnkOhrOF EXPERTS
1RS0lUTElT WORTHLESS,
Aelares Judge Hum
hreys in Kali
kea Case.
81 EVIDENCE OISSEcTED.
EVIDENCE OIsSEGTEB.
AcAULEY QUOTED BY THE
coURT TO coRRoBoRATE
AN ARGUMENT.
3 lsintiff, if She Has Played a
Part, Is Worthy to Be Class
ed With Great
Actors.

=
Koral decision In the case Of Kalikea -
HIapa et al The case was 4 motion 10
Bet aside deed on the ground that Ka-
lllkea was non compos mentis. The
plaintiff owns land 1t Moanalua- Sue
sold 10 the defendant land valued al
5000 and bringing an income Of SEQ
. year. FOR sos.
The record In this casc said The
kcourt in rendering the decision
.eontalns great deal Of rub
bIsh. a mass OF immaterial. incompe-
tent and impairment matter. and. like
all cases that are hotly contested. it IS
mosaic Of truth and falsehood. q.
/, affirmation and denial. OF assurance
and doubt The court cannot unde:-
take and will not undertake 70 base It's
decision upon one isolated OF detached
fact or circumstance.
The expert evidence, with possibly
the exception Of DIT. Emerson's testi-
sInony. which was marked with SOME
degree OF modesty and candor, is abso-
iutely worthless and reflects no credit
upon the witnesses themselves or upon
the profession to which they belong.
Take DIR. Sloggetts testimony. for IN
stance. the first witness sworn as an
expert. He says that some two years
i ago he was called upon to examine this
woman at his Office she being brought
10 him by Mrs Theresa Wilcox; that
he had no previous acquaintance with
Mrs Wilcox: he did not know and
made no inquiry as 90 her character or
standing in this community; that ne
did not know whether she had ans
Interior motive in having this woman
pronounced sane or insane: that he At
tempted at such examination
10 csrry on some conversation
with complainant. but failed to elicit
any intelligent reply to his questions.
indeed. that she would not talk at all.
HE says that he was informed in sub
stance by Mrs. Wilcox that she had
known tsis woman from childhood
ard that she had always been an idiot.
The doctor made no physical examiira-
ton OF the complainant: he
made absolutely no inquiry into her
family history. did not inquire as TO
her parentage: did not inquire even is
TO the mental condition of her prog
eny: indeed. am not sure that the
record shows that he knew she had
any children. lie made no inquiry "a
10 whether or not the complainant, in
early life, bad met with any accident
.. he came into this courtroom
and. before taking the witness stand,
demanded fee OF $50 for giving TX
pert testimony. and before be left the
stand expressly admitted that he was
not an expert. and that even an ordi-
nary layman could testify as accu-
rately and intelligently about this case
rs he had done. ] say man who en-
JOYS the privileges accorded medical
men. exempt from jury duty and
from perhaps other civic responsible
ties. who SO far forgets his obligations
90 society and To his profession as to
place himself In the attitude in which
Or. Sloggett has placed himself. al
most voluntarily. | may say. because
there is no evidence that he was re-
ouired to give n eertifeate-it WAS
VOLUNTARY act. based on insufficient
evidence. an act which he admits is
not entitled 10 any credit say a man
who viii place himself in that position
deserves az the hands OF the court Sc
we're criticism and censure.
DIR. Howard's testimony is very lit
tie better He called TO see this wo-
man az her home several times, md
found her out. or il WAS said she was
out. Finally he succeeded in iindins
her at home. He said he talked with
her for about fifteen minutes. and when
asked To detail the conversation, all he
could say was that he asked her
whether she owned any land, She said
she did. He asked her whether she
desired to sell the land She said no.
He asked her WHY she didn't desire 10
ssll n. and she said because when the
tramway WAS completed to Moansius
her land would greatly appreciate in
value. and she could then sell 10 very
much better advantage That is the
aAnNNIS3SR0u N sum aNa S1ASt-AttNN -
what be SAYS occurred. and which. ae-
cording Ia his testimony. covered
period OF tifteen minutes.
He made no inquiry as 10 her ante
ceaenis. Tie made no physical eSami-
nation whatever. He did not inquire
whether the woman had ever met with
any accident in early childhood. or
whether she had been or Was : sufferer
from any Of the diseases peculiar 10
women He made no inquiry as 10 the
health of her children. He simply
concluded from = brief conversational
examination that the woman displayed
considerable foresight. shrewdness and
cunning. and that she was sane. be-
cause she declined 10 sell her land and |
wanted 10 hold il until the street car /
reached the vicinity In which she lived |
He did not even make inquiry as 10 /
whether or not that was common talk 1
which this woman had heard for
months and which she was repeating /
as a mere parrot He did not know.
despite the fact that this woman said
she didn't wish TO sell her land, that
she had actually sold a piece Of prop
erty, according 10 the admission in the
case. worth $500. bringing in an IN
come Of $50 year. for the sum Of
500.
IL DR.. Howard's testimony is true
that this woman did not wish To sell
her land because OF the railroad an
preaching that locality and thus en-
NAIelhb ~ value, Il does not accord
"A