The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-09-17
ANOTHER
LONG DELAY
Argued a Whole
Day on Pearl
Harbor Suits.
FRIGHT TO JURY
| NOT CONSIDERED
Defendants Made Sudden Change
Of Base After Arguments
We're In.

Judge EStee nedTQ arguments yes
terday as to the right of the Pearl
Harbor claimants to a jury to fix the
value of the property taken by the
for the use Of the naval
station. That is to say, he thought
the arguments involved that question,
until at their conclusion he was in
formed that the claimants did not de-
sire the matter to be considered at this
time.
1t was rather peculiar proceeding
in Federal Court yesterday-the hear
ing in the case of the United States
VS.. the Estate of Bernice Bishop, de-
ceased, ct al; condemnation.
The plaintiff, through Assistant
United States Attorney Dunno, filed a
motion to strike out of defendant S
answer the part referring to demand
for trial by jury. Before proceeding
on this motion the name of j. c. Baird
was added as attorney for the United
States, and the word Assistant sub
stituted for acting" in referring to
Mr. Dunno.
Mr. Dunno, in beginning, stated that
his objection to the paragraph In
question was purely technical, and he
would not argue the right of defend
ants to a trial by jury, on the ground
that they We're compelled to bear the
burden of such contention By agree
ment, however, it was decided to argue
ut fn
right of the defendants to set UP a
claim for jury in their answer, and
also as to their right to a jury trial.
This was agreed to by defendants as
a saving of time, and 1t was on this
theory that the plaintiff proceeded
Captain Merry, Captain Pond and Cap
tain White were in court listening to
the arguments.
Mr.. Dunno argued that the para
graph referring to the jury should be
stricken out, as being redundant and
irrelevant He said it was entirely q
question of procedure, and confined his
argument solely to the technical right
of the defendants to set up plea fol-
trial by jury in their answer. He ar
gued that under the rules of practice
such procedure was improper, and ask
ed that the offending paragraph be
stricken from the record. Referring
to the second part of the question as
to the legal right of respondents to g
trial by jury, he stated that the Unit
ed States was on the defensive in this
matter, and it was for the defendants
to prove.
F. NJ. Hatch, Judge Stanley and II
A Bigelow appeared on behalf of thu
respondents, and the argument was
presented by Mr. Hatch. He went fully
into the question of the jury, anC
quoted from sections 1862 and 1860 il
support of his contention, that defend
ants had a right to have a jury con
slider the question Of damages in thu
condemnation proceeding. The cour
inquired at this point If a case coul(
be cited wherein jury had been call
ed under the section of the statute
quoted, and Mr.. Hatch replied that thu
law had only been in effect since 1896
To this argument Mr.. Dunno replied
that the statute of 1896 was the SAM
as had been on the statute books 70
years and a jury had never beef
granted in a condemnation proceedin,
by the United States.
Mr.. Hatch argued that the court hac
no other recourse; that when a jur.
was demanded, it was not DIPLOMA
with the court as to his. right to gran
| it, as the statute expressly provided
for a jury in condemnation cases
where there is a question of unliqui
dated damages. He said the Language
| of the statute in referring to the eour
meant judge and jury, and NOT Judg
alone The argument continued unit
after noon. AT the conclusion of tn
argument Mr.. Dunno rose to reply
when upon questioning by Judge Es
| tee, Mr. Hatch stated that he did no
wish the entire jury question passe'
| upon at this time, but only as to IN
right of respondents to set up de
mand for a jury in their answer. Thl
came as a total surprise to both cour
and attorneys for the United states
and Judge Estee abruptly closed TN
argument, stating that he would pas
upon the question of striking out tn
| paragraph in the answer today IL pos
sible. No reason was given by de
PENDANTS for their sudden change o
base, as it was believed all along tina
Mr.. Hatch was arguing on the maii
question of a jury. This will conse
quently cause another long delay II
the final hearing. as the question OF
.,,.,, rfi1l NOT dismissed OF, and tQs