The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-03-12
VERDICT
| ALMOST
. THE SAME
Must PayHonoIuIu
Plantation Sum
of $lO2, 523.
JURY AGREED IN
EARLY EVENING.
Value Of Leasehold is More Than
at First Trial But Improve
ment is Less.

The jury In the second trial OF the
case OF the United States VS.. the Homo
lulu Plantation Company returned a
verdict at 1890 o'clock last evening as
sessing the value OF the Ieasehold and
improvements at s1O2. .523.
The finding OF the jury is about $500
less than that given at the first trial.
which was s1O5.O0O. and which Judge
Estee set aside as excessive. ordering
a reduction OF $4,000. which being re-
fused by defendant. he allowed n new
| trial. Notice Of motion for a new trial
was given both by the plaintiff and de-
fendant. though Mr.. Miiverton appear
endant's motion would hardly be
jkessed.
The finding OF the second jury Is Pc
euliar. Upon the first trial the value
OF the leasehoId was estimated at $50. 792
and OF the improvements at sI5.2Os.
This jury places a value OF 5000 more
upon the IeasehoId. or $4,000. while its
estimate OF the value OF the improve
ments Is but ss523. or about $1,000 less
than that of the first jury. The esti-
mate per acre upon the leasehold in
terest IS approximately s167, taking into
account the entire sol acres. arabic and
waste. while II the arabic land alone
~ considered the estimate Is s276 per
acre.
Judge SIliiman opened the argument
yesterday morning.. and concluded at
NJ
, o'clock. and the jury was Immediately
instructed At o'clock no agreement
having been reached Marshal Hendry
took the jury to dinner at the Hawaii
an Hotel. At $50 o'clock an agreement
was announced. but II was over an
hour before the attorneys could be
brought into court. The jury was first
called, and the verdict then handed To
Clerk Mailing. who read as follows:
United States of America. District of
Hawaii--In the District Court OF
the United States in and for the
District OF Hawaii.
The United States of America, Plain
tiff and Petitioner. vs. the Honolulu
Plantation Company. a Corporation. :
et al, Defendant and Respondent. I
VERDICT.
We. the jury in the above entitled
action, upon the issues framed in said
action between the above named plain
tin and petitioner. and the Honolulu
Plantation Company. a corporation,
defendant and respondent above nam
ed. find the following verdict, to wit:
1. We find that the above named 1
plaintiff and petitioner is entitled to
have all the right. title. interest and
kftate Of said the Honolulu Plantation
e>npany, corporation. said defend
ant and respondent. in and to the tract
n nd ~ Ia nd
more particularly describ-
ed. condemned for the uses and pur-
poses set out in the petition on file
herein. and to take, hold and acquire
said tract and parcel Of land and its
In fee simple absolute.
for the public uses and purposes in said
petition set out.
2 We find the value OF all improve
ments upon the property condemned
In the above entitled action To be
1883.
3. We find the value OF the property
in the above entitled action,
To wit the 1easehOid interest Of said
defendant. said the Honolulu Planta-
ton Company, corporation, in and
TO the tract and parcel Of land con- ;
demned herein. and hereinafter more :
particularly described. To be $4,000. in
United States gold goin-
q As TO that part OF the property
Condemned herein which constitutes
only a portion Of the larger tract. we
Ind and assess the damages which will ,
accrue to the portion not sought to be
condemned by reason OF its severance
rom the portion sought to be con-
1erned. and the construction Of the y
rnfrUvements I'm the manner proposed .
ylfhe above named plaintiff and petit g
'i9hcr. To be nothing.
.. A. to that part OF the property {
condemned herein which constitutes :
lnly portion Of a larger tract. we
Ind and assess the benefits To the pOr-
Ion not sought to be condemned by
he construction OF the Improvement.