The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-12-28
WIDE RANGE
ESTIMATES
|One Witness Sees
Difference Of
100000
PEARL HARBOR
CASE DRAGS ON
Attorneys Quarrel Over Admis-
sion of Evidence as TO
ProductiVcness.

The first Astimony as 10 Ieasehold
values of the 10 IIIIl rlanta:i'n %.
was introduced yes.e.dly. ana if it is
any criterion of future revelations, the
range of values viii be much wider
than at the hearing If the first Pearl
Harbor suit.
Deputy Assessor Frank Archer on
questioning by United States Attorney
Durne estimated the leasehold interest
per acre for the entire forty years 70 be
worth twenty-five dollars. Upon hypo-
thetical question from Judge silliman,
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 SiiIiman
gave the basis for the estimate, the
witness figuring that a profit of $50 per
ton of sugar made ne land worth $3.50
an acre, $50. 800 for the entire tract, an
nuany. or 81, 400. 600 for the ledsehold in
terest.
gal wrangles between the two attor-
neys, in which Judge Estee played d
prominent part The principal cause
of contention was the admission Of ev-
idence as to present productiveness of
the land. which the defendants claimed
they had a right to show. and which
Mr.. Dunno contended aa1 nothing to do
with the present case The ,ourt finally
allowed the witness, Assessor Archer,
to testify, after examination by Sllii-
man as to his competency as an expert
on sugar lands and productiveness.
Somewhat of a sensation was caused
when Judge Silliman 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 mucl mista-
KEN
a Chinaman has grown cane 1pcn
an acre of this land. and that within
very few years past" replied silliman.
The court and jury nave neen Ge-
ceived then. in the former case" said
Judge Estee who thereupon asked Mr..
snlTman 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 the
land. as speculative and to remote. Mr..
Sfliman replied that ne had right II
know whether or not Nj. Archer was
capable of expressing an opinion, and
that the value of the laud was gov
erned by the equipment, mill. pumping
plant already upon i. Mr. Dunno was
ON his feet in an instant, and in angry
tone protested against counsel making
such statements in the presence of the
Jury. contending that the facts showed
there was no mill, pumps, or any Inde-
pendent water supply upon the land
condemned by the United States. The
court ended the controversy by the e
mark to defendant, You have no right
to show what the land VIII produce;
that is pure guesswork- You can't prove
a theoretical proposition"
by Analysing the soil, could you
tell what the productiveness of this
land would be-" asked Mr.. Silliman.
after he had convinced the court that
upon certain conditions productiveness
could be proven.
Yes" replied Archer.
.I'u give you the analyses then" but
the attorney was unable to find them
Then Mr.. Dunno began the examine
ton again to learn the witness opinion
Of the value Of the Ieasehold interest.
Archer was told 10 rake into consider
atio,r the fact that the seven years
lease was paid up. and that the neW
lease was to run To 1870. and the Ho-
rolulu Plantation Company was To pay
30 per cent of all sugar grown. not to
fall below 81 coo Il 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 artesian
well. and no way OF getting water
Ct, mill or facilities for handling cane.
How much would the lease hold in
terest i'm that land. half of which -
arabic. be worth per acre. for hfty
years." concluded Mr.. Dunno.
1T is worth in my opinion SO an
acre replied Archer.
Now take into consideration said
siIliman. to whom the witness mad
been turned over for cross-eXamina-
ton. the fact that this tract is but
,art Of 4 large plantation. which has
upon it a mill erected at a cost of S'vo'-
oG0. ample water supply. which can be
easily carried to this land. and all the
necessary equipment for the conduct Of
plantation. Suppose that TINS lana