The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1901-12-31
WIDE RANGE
ESTIMATES
Ore Witness Sees
Difference Of
100000.
(rrom Saturdays daily)

The first testimony as % Ieasehold
values Of the ltIl ,i.i,r rlan,a:t i 30.
was introduced yes.e:div, anu II 1t is
any criterion of future revelations, the
range of values will be much wider
than at the hearing 9f the first Pearl
Harbor suit
Deputy Assessor FRANK Archer on
questioning by United states Attorney
Dunno estimated the lcas>hold interest
per acre for the entire forty years 70 be
worth twenty-five dollars. Upon hypo-
thetical question from Judge Sjlliman,
based upon what the defendant intends
to prove, Archer estimated the value
per acre upon the same land to be
$1,000. In the first case Dunno furnished
the hypothesis. in the second SDliman
gave the basis for the estimate. the
witness figuring that a profit of $50 per
ton of sugar made .he land worth $50
an acre, $50. 500 for the entire tract, an
nuaily. or 900 for the leasehold in
terest.
The entire day was given over to le-
gal wrangies between che two attor-
neys, in which Judge Estae played a
prominent part. The principal cause
of contention was the admission Of ev-
idence as to present productivenoss of
the land, which the defendants claimed
they had right to show. and which
Mr., Dunno contended aa1 nothing to do
with the present case. The ,1urt finally
allowed the witness, Assessor Archer,
to testify, after examination by Slli!-
man as to his competency as an expert
on sugar lands and productivene
Somewhat of a sensation WAS caused
when Judge Silllman in this examine
ton calmly announced that sugar had
been grown on the land in question.
IF that is So" remarked the court,
some twenty witnesses who testified In
the first trial were very Inuc.l nista-
ken"
"a Chinaman has grown cane :pcn
an acre of this land, and that within 4
very few years past" replied Silliman.
"'The court and jury nave hfen de-
ceived, then. in the former case" said
Judge Estee, who thereupon asked Mr.
Siliman to prove the facts alleged.
Mr.. Dunno objected to any questiors
as to the possibility of what might at
some future date be pro iucei on tic
land, as speculative and toe remote. Mr..
Silliman replied that he had right to
know whether or not Nj. Archer was
capable of expressing an opinion. and
that the value of the land was gov
erned by the equipment, mill. pumping
plant already upon it. Mr.. Dune was
on his feet in an instant, and In angry
tone protested against counsel making
such statements in the presence of the
jury, contendinE that the facts shove d
there was no mill, pumps, or any lnde-
pendent water supply upon the land
condemned by the United States. The
court ended the controversy by the re-
mark to defendant, you have no right
to show what the land will produce;
that Is pure guesswork. You can't prove
q theoretical proposition"
by Analysing the soil. could you
tell what the productiveness If this
land would be?" asked MIR. Silliman.
after he had convinced the court that
upon certain conditions productiveness
could be proven.
Yes" replied Archer
tn give you the analyses then" but
the attorney was unable to find them.
Then Mr.. Dunno began the eXamina-
ton again to learn the witness opinion
of the value of the leasehold interest.
Archer was told to take into consider
alton the fact that the seven years
lease was paid up. and that the new
lease was to run to 1910. and the Ho-
Eolulu Plantation Company was to pay
81 per cent Of all sugar grown, not tC
fall below $4,000 a year in value. which
covered more than the present tract
condemned by the government. He
was also asked to consider the fact
that the tract had no independent wa
ter supply, excepting a small artesiar
well. and no way Of getting water
o. mill or facilities for handling cane
How much would the lease hold in
terest in that land, half Of which Il
arabic. be worth per acre. for fift!
years?" concluded Mr.. Dunno.
1T Is worth In my opinion s25 al
acre" replied Archer.
Now take into consideration" SAT-
Silliman. to whom the witness ha'
been turned over for cross-examina
ton, 1.-The fact that this tract Is but
part of a large plantation, which ha
upon II n mill erected at a cost of 500,
900: ample water supply. which can b
easily carried to this land, and all tn
necessary equipment for the conduct o
plantation. Suppose that this Ian
Captain Pond was put on the stan
to testify as to his connection with tn
condemnation of the land, and its area
and avaiiabillties, and the question wa
also raised as to when he notified tn
Honolulu Plantation Company that tn
United States wanted the land. III
and Manager Low disagreed as to
few essential points of several converse
tions regarding the condemnation. TIL
government is attempting to show tina
part of the ploughing was done afte
IL nau DSen ueciueu 10 TAKE tHe ldll'
and the defendant claims that the
were not notified of the intention c
the United States regarding the prop
erty until some months thereafte
Ponds testimony was nearly the sam
as given during the Bishop Estat
trial. Tho naval officer testified to tn
benefits which would accrue to the dc
PENDANT in the establishment of a navf
station. setting out the value of tn
dry docks harbor and increased popu
lation.
would raise eight or nine tons of suga
per acre, each crop, or six tons pc
year Consider that 1t costs $32 so
grow ton of sugar, and that sugar
selling for s62 a ton, as II has been d.
irr ard that there is profit OF s
per tom Consider also that there al