The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1901-12-06
PRICE IS
SOARING
The Pearl Harbor
Suit Still on
Trial.
OFrom Wednesdays dally)

Yesterdays witnesses for the govern
ment in the Pearl Harbor ease were in
clined to give the Bishop Estate the
benefit in their valuations of the land
examined by them. During the day but
three witnesses were on the stand. Cap
tain Merry, Allan Herbert and w. G.
Ashley.
Captain J. +. Merry testified simply
TO the exchange of letters between the
Bishop Estate and himself when, two
years ago, he secured an option on
the land at the request of the Navy
Department. At that time the trustees
gave him an option upon the desired
land at fifty dollars an acre, for one
year, and the letters in proof OF this
were introduced as evidence.
w G.. Ashley of the real estate firm
of Ashley & Paris was the next witness.
He was formerly secretary of the Oahu
Railway & Land Co. at the time the
railroad was constructed through the
Bishop Estate land, and examined the
land at that time. He was of the opin-
ion that fifty dollars an acre would be
"a fair market price for the six hundred
acres taken as a whole.
On cross-examination by Mr.. Kinney
the latter drew out some favorable adj
missions relative to the value of the
water front cut up into beach lots.
The witness stated that land in Pearl
city was worth about $500 per acre
lot. The two mile frontage he thought
might be worth 500 an acre, and If cut
up into town lots with improvements,
such as water, railroad facilities, grad
ing. etc, eighty lots with frontage on
4. 80 l,Nt.
without improvements witness did not
believe they would be worth over
$4,000.
Witness testified that an acre of su-
gar land would produce eight and half
tons of sugar which would be worth
about 500. The ground rental at three
and a half per cent would be about So
per annum.
do you mean to say that the land
will yield eight and half tons of sugar
to am acre." asked the court.
Yes, SIR" answered Mr.. Kinney DO
you want to hear evidence on that point
now. We intend to show later that the
land in question would yield ten tons
per acre"
And the land has never produced "A
crop" put in Mr.. Dunno.
''All the more reason why ii will pro-
duce more now" said Mr.. Kinney.
Figuring on the basis suggested by
MIR. Kinney the witness thought the SUI
gar land would be worth about $40 to
s2C0 an acre. About half of the land
was sugar land, he thought. The wit
ness would not commit himself as to
the relative values for investment pur-
roses of sugar land leases and Terri
torial tonds.
Allan Herbert, the expert who made
"A special visit to the land at the request
of the government, was on the stand
for the greater part of the afternoon.
he placed a value of twenty-five dollars
an acre upon the Kuahua Island tract,
and thought the cane land on the
mainland was worth about 500 an acre
Fifty dollars an acre was fair Nalua-
Jion for the land taken as whole. He
said there was but one well on the land
and the water in it was slightly brack-
ish. The witness declined to place Il
value upon the lands of DR.. McGrew
the Eva Plantation or Fords Island
stating that he was unable to DO JUS
tice to himself in making such an es-
innate. He said he had only been tC
the shore 81 Ford's Island, ana at that
time he was so occupied with the ladies
and with lunch he paid no attention
to the condition of the land there
though he was under the impression
that it was rocky.
He thought that the Bishop Estat,
lands condemned by the government
were the poorest in the district, bu
with proper care and fertilization su
gar. corn or grape crops might be rails
ed upon part Of it. Mr.. Herbert pro
fessed ignorance of what amount Of su
gar could be raised on this land ii /
was cultivated, and said he preferred
not to make estimates on probabilities
He expressed his inability to answe
n"Sr.y every question put t. HIN by NJ
Kinney until finally that gentleman
asked angrily:
What business have you here swear
ing away the rights of the Bishop Els
tate. If you don't know anything abou
this land? You are here as an expert?
Judge Estee refused to allow tn
question and criticised ii as not prope
to be put to the witness. The cour
held that Mr.. Herbert was not swear
ing away anyone's rights and such
question was clearly improper. Mr.
Kinney contended that the question
was proper upon cross-examination. blu
the court ordered it stricken from tn
records.
The examination OF Mr.. Herbert wa
completed before the evening adjourn
ment.
(From Thursdays daily.)