The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-10-08
FOR THE
THIRD TIME
.NeWAnsWerstoBe
Filed in Naval
Suits.
LOCAL PRACTICES
ARE NOT PROPER
Judge Estee Will Not Accept Old
Hawaiian Law Methods in
the Federal Court.

terday morning in the Pearl Harbor
suits. granting the mo-
ton Of the United States to strike out
the answers filed by the respondents,
making general denial. Exceptions
have already been filed by FIVE of the
defendants, and all of them will be
compelled to file new answers, for a
third time In his ruling the court
passed generally upon the question of
the practice of law in the Federal court
and its relation to the practice in the
Hawaiian courts of old. He said in
part:
The principal question arising, under
this action so far as the defendants,
oahu Sugar Company, Limited, Oahu
Railway and Land Company and the
Honolulu Plantation Company, are con-
cerned, is whether they have gone be-
yond the scope of the order of this Court
striking out the irrelevant and redundant
matter complained of in the first motion,
to strike out portions of each of the
original answers.
1t seems to me clear that there could be
no such construction placed upon such
order as would entitle these defendants
to take the steps they have taken in this
matter The order was intended simply
to allow the filing of amended answers
with the offensive matter stricken there
! from, and as that matter was copied In
! the order and related entirely to the
question of a claim for a jury trial, it
| could not be misunderstood. The words,
''and take such other steps as they may
| be advised" was intended by the Court
! to give said defendants an opportunity
| to renew their application for jury in
any proper manner.
| This was evidently clear to the other
defendants in the case appearing upon
the first motion, for they filed verified
answers herein with the redundant mat
ter stricken out.
But counsel claims they are following
the local practice in the Courts of this
Territory by filing this form of an I'M
verified answer, and as that as the United
| States is proceeding under the provisions
of the Act of Congress of August, 1888,
that this Court is bound to follow the
same Territorial laws in relation Ito
practice pleading, forms and modes OF
proceedings"
It should be noted that the single OBJ
ject of condemnation proceedings Is to
fix the compensation for the property
|
Lamb VS.. Shottler. 81 Cal, 319; Garrison
VS. New York, 81 Wall, U. s., 1876.
And the object of all trials is to bring
. out the truth and as the pleaings pre-
; cede the trial, the pleadings should aHegt
the truth That cannot be done under
; verified complaint and an unverihed an
! swer AS a rule the one is the solemn
. testimony of the plaintiff himself; tn
other the unverified allegations of TIT
: anrNfi 10
plaintiff to exact and truthful statement
{ under oath; the other opens wide tn
field of inquiry by unverifed allegations
which may be true or false, but which
? necessarily leads to delay and which ca
serve no good purpose
I have been unable to find any othe
Z statute of the Civil Laws of Hawaii o
any rule of Court requiring either tina
! the said answer should or should not b
: verified. But all petitions Tor complaints
: must be so verified This Court assume
that from the very nature of the ansWe
prescribed in Section 1923, it must be yer
= fled, because the answer must deny tt
2 truth of the facts stated in the (sWorI
petition" in order that they shah lori
Z IAN issue of fact to be determined by tt
\ jury"
y There is nothing in the rules of tn
2 Court upon the subject of verifcatlon
u pleadings in cases of this character.
! But the pleader has no right to assun
4 that because the statute is silent on II
T single point as to the verification of Il
Y answer, while requiring a verified cor
I plant that the usual and uniform ru
\ of pleading shall not be followed, nam
= ly. that when the complaint or petite
Z is by law required to be verified, that
q verified answer shall be made.
- This opinion is not intended in any WI
to influence the practice in the Territori
Courts, except as such practice would l
terfere with the usual rules of pieadu
bo in such Court 1t is clear to the Cou
- that the oath of defendant to the alleg
ri0 tions of the answer is quite as much
o. the interest of the enforcement Of pun
a. Justice as the oath of plaintiff to ms
M tition and it seems unreasonable TO p
N the plaintiff upon his oath and leave
he defendants to file any sort OF an uhNe
.o+ fed denial they may see tit. And SO
- tbo absence of any law of the Terrific
oh of Hawaii. or OF any rule OF either |
70 Courts of the Territory or of this Cou
declaring that in this form OF acuC
q the answers shall be unVerihea
IN Court must hold that it is within
TO power to require that verified ans"'
oh shall be filed to the verified petltioH
he complaint herein.
II conclusion. therefore. this Coz
nd holds that the so-caTled amended answ'
OF the oahu Railway and Land CompaI
the oahu Sugar Company and the no!
ln lulu Plantation Company, should
stricken from the files. because they
e, not within the terms of the order of I
. Court, dated September IS, 1901. strik
out portion OF the original answers
n said defendants heretofore filed here
which are general denials and not We
"a, fed; and that the answer of the BOWS
Company, Limited, be stricken from
files upon the ground that It is unv'
~ fed and general denial.
That the defendants. Oahu RailT,
Ms ana l-alu i,,+ti Come
shall each have three days from the q
MS hereof. within which to file their orig
answers re-engrossed to conform to