The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1901-10-07
EsTEE SAYS HAWAIIAN RULES
ARE ORIGINAL.
Refuses to Follow the Practice OF the
Territorial Code-Important Pearl
Hsrbor Case Decision

United states Judge Estee this morn
ing ruled out NJ court the answers filed
iu the Pearl Harbor land condemna-
ti0n suits by the oahu Railway and
Land Company. oahu Sugar Company,
Honolulu Plantation Company and the
uowsett Company. The reason in the
first three cases is the character Of the
Fo-calied amended answers. which were
held 90 be not amended answers, but
new answers. The DOwsett answer
was stricken out because it is unveri-
fled In rendering this decision Estee
refuses TO follow the Territorial courts
I in the matter of rules OF practice. He
also shuts the defendants out from
raising any issue in the trials except
as to the values OF the land wanted
by the government
The decision was on United states
I District Attorney Dunne's motion to
strike out the answers as not amend
ed but new. The original answers
were ordered amended by the striking
out " a demand for a new jury. In
these first answers the defendants ad-
mitted under oath all the allegations
I in the governments complaint, except
as to the value OF the land. In the
I new answers they denied every allega-
I ton Dunno moved to strike the an
swers out as not amended, but new
altogether Judge Estee said:
The principal question arising under
/ this action 50 far as the defendants.
] oahu Sugar Company, Limited, Oahu
I Railway and Land Company and the
/ Honolulu Plantation Company, ere con-
/ cerned is whether they have gone be-
yond the scope of the order Of this
I Court striking out the irrelevant and
I redundant matter complained VI In the
I first motion. to strike out portions Of
I each of the original answers.
1 1T seems TO me clear that there could
Z be no such construction placed upon
/ such order as would entitle these de-
/ PENDANTS to take the steps they have
! taken in this matter. The order was
Z Intended simply to allow the filing Of
/ amended answers with the offensive
matter stricken therefrom. and as that
] matter was copied in tnC order and re-
/ lated entirely to the question Of a claim
I for q jury trial IL could not 3e lnisun-
: derstood. The words and take such
other steps as they may be advised was
] Intended by the Court to give said de-
J fendants an opportunity 70 renew their
application for a jury in any proper
. manner
But counsel claims they are follow-
/ ing the local practice in the Courts Of
this territory by hllin, tais form of an
unverified answer and that as the
United States is proceeding under the
I provisions Of the Act Of Congress of
August. 1888 that this Iourt Is bound TO
follow the same territorial laws in re-
lation to practice, pleading, forms and
modes OF proceeding.
The object Of all trials is to bring out
the truth. and as the pleadings precede
{ the trial. the pleadings should allege
! the truth That cannot be done under
a verified complaint and an unverihed
3 answer As rule the one is the solemn
testimony Of the plaintiff himself; the
: other the unverihed allegations of de-
fandants attorney. The one confirms
p plaintiff To- exact and truthful state
r ments under oath: the other opens wide
2 the field Of inquiry by unverihed alle-
cations which may be true or false but
which necessarily leads to delay and
which can serve no good purpose.
a The forms Of pleading in the terri
Z torial Courts Of Hawaii are certainly
y original with this territory although II
Z fs claimed that the present rule follow
y ing has been the law for over fifty
years.
This opinion is not intended in any
way To influence the practice in the
/. territorial Courts except as such prac-
4 tice would interfere with the usual
q rules Of pleading in this court. 1t is
o clear to the Court that the oath OF de-
e fendant to the allegations of the an
swer is quite as much in the interest
Iof the enforcement Of public justice as
the oath Of plaintiff to his petition, and
\ lii. seems unreasonable to put the plain
e. tiff upon his oath and leave the defend
s ants to file any sort Of an unVerlneC
. denial they may see fit. And so in the
% absence Of any law of the territory ol
:. Hawaii or Of any rule either tine
Courts Of the Territory or Of this Court
declaring that in this form Of ac1 on
, the answers shall be unverifed, his
Court must hold that it is within It's
I power to require that verified answers
T. shall be filed to the verified petition ol
~ complaint herein.
$ IN conclusion therefore, this Cour
80 holds that the so-called amended an
.: s,vers Of the Oahu Railway and LanC
IT Company. the oahu Sugar Compan!
and Honolulu Plantation Company
should be stricken from the files be
cause they are not within the term
IL Of the order Of this Court dated sep
g tember IS, 1901, striking out portol
r of the original answers Of said defend
,e ants heretofore filed herein are gen
eral denials and not verified; and tina
- the answer Of the Dowsett Compan
Limited be stricken from the files upo
the ground that It is unverihed ana
general denial.
"That the defendants, oahu Railroa
and Land Company, oahu Sugar com
pany and Honolulu Plantation Com
Ipany shall each have three days lfol
the date hereof, within Whlch 10 III
their original answers re-engrossed |
conform to the order Of this Court pre-
viousIy made, striking from said an
swors and each Of their claims fo
"a Jury trial. and the defendant DOW
sett Company Limited is hereby give
three days from the date hereof Withl
which to file a duly verified amende
lanswer.
"ESTEE, Judge"
The decision may operate TO shortt
the trials a good deal as 1t coniin'
the hearing 10 the one subject Of va
ues In the attempted answers the d
PENDANTS left the way open TO oppo
the plaintiffs contentious as 10 u
need Of the land. etc, and they mig
n have made a lonp fight on such issue
" yrh. ttAtt.4o..B ,,ruI prove the mo