Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1901-12-13

Estate. He concluded at 4 o'clock.
Mr.. Kinney wanted the Courts reasons
for refusing certain requested instruc-
lions. but Judge Estee stated that he
found by the statutes of this Terri
tory that no reasons should be given
and under the United States statutes
the statutes of the Territory should be
followed.
Mr.. Dunno asked II both sides might
not enter exceptions to the charge as a
whole Judge Estee had come across
proceedings elsewhere that made him
think the course proposed might cause
trouble in a higher court.
Mr.. Kinney noted exceptions to the
charge with special reference TO- GER
tain portions Including those relative
to fair public sale and the ,disregard.
ing of leases.
Mr.. Dunno excepted to various por-
tions and especially to the refusal o;
instructions requested by the Govern
ment.
The Court answered a question by a
Juror, to the effect that the jury could
not make a que lent verdict-that Is.
by dividing the sum OF diverse valua-
tions in the jury room by twelve.
There being no agreement of the
jury up to Z o'clock, Judge Estee di-
rected them taken to the Hawaiian ho-
tel for the night.
Judge Estee's instructions were ex-
haustive and complete, and were al.
lowed to be taken into the Jury room,
by the Jury. The Court referred first
to the scope Of the action, giving also
a description Of the land sought to be
condemned, and stating that the ques-
ton before the jury was, what Is
the Just compensation to be paid by
the United States to the owners there
Of" He charged the Jury not to let the
circumstance Of the United States be-
ing a party have any weight upon the
value fixed. The Jury was also warn.
ed against fixing any speculative value.
but the limit must be the actual condi-
ton of the property July 6, 1901.
1.-The burden OF proving the market
value Of the interest Of the defendant
to the lands in question Is upon the
plaintiffs; in other words, the claim o!
the plaintiff as to the amount of com
pensation to be awarded defendant
must be proven by the plaintiff by a
preponderance of the evidence"
In considering the value Of Kuahua
Island, the jury was told to take into
consideration the fact that 1t had new.
err been used for residence purposes
and that the island is surrounded by a
lagoon and the climate there is exces.
sively hot.
The Court further instructed the jury
as to the different and wide range OF
values placed upon the lands. and stat
ed that 1t must all be considered to-
gether, and the honesty Of all witness
es must be assumed until the contrary
appears. Referring to the visit made
to the land by the jury, The Court said:
"The knowledge so acquired may be
used by you in determining the weight
Of conflicting testimony respecting the
value Of the land but not otherwise"
In concluding the charge to the jury
Judge Estee summed up the entire
question as follows:
have told you that the fair marke.
value OF the. property as that property
actually stood on July 6, 1901, should
be paid for It; and in this behalf !
charge you that what this property
would bring at fair public sale, where
one party wants to sell and another
wants to buy, may be taken as a cri-
terion Of its market value. But you
must understand that compensation is
to be estimated in this case by the
actual rights acquired by the govern
ment, and not by the use which the
government may make Of these rights;
and therefore, instruct you, that the
fact that this property may be desired
by or necessary to the government. Is
not to be considered by you In fixing
compensation.
further instruct you that the actual
value Of this property cannot be en-
HANGED by reason of the projected i'm
provement for which II is taken; for
this would simply be to make the gov
eminent pay for an enhancement caus-
ed by its own work. And moreover,
the willingness or unwillingness of the
Bishop Estate to part with its prop
erty Is not proper element Of value;
nor can you consider what the Bishop
Estate would give rather than be de-
prived of the property. AS have here
tofore said. you will, in determining
compensation, limit your attention to
the market value of the roperty as II
actually stood on July 6, 1901, and be
guided solely by that.
Some evidence has been introduced
by the government showing certain
valuations sworn to and filed with the
assessor, pursuant to the require
ments Of the Territorial statute in that
regard. Upon this subject, charge
you that such sworn returns to the
assessor are called by law admissions
against interest and are competent EVIL
dence tending to show the market
value of the property referred to there
In at that time. You may therefore,
and indeed It is your duty to consider
such returns along with the other EVIL
dence in the case bearing upon the
question OF value, Of this property.
! instruct you also that the option
given by the defendants to the United
States for portion only of the prop
erty now condemned, subject to exist
Ing leases held by the Honolulu Sugar