Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-01-28
NEW TRIAL ORDERED
HONOLULU PLANTATION
REFUSES COURTS OPTION
Attorney Silliman Not Allowed to
File Defendants Exceptions
in Open Court --- Trial
in March.

The Honolulu Plantation Company's
the third of March.
Mr.. Silliman presented bill Of ex-
ceptions yesterday afternoon to the de-
cision of Judge Estee ordering a new
trial unless the defendant accepted
judgment for $4,000 instead of $780,
900 as awarded by the jury.
Federal Attorney Dunno opposed the
filing of the exceptions and was sup
ported by Judge Estee. on the ground
that the court could not take notice Of
exceptions until the three days option
named in the decision had expired.
Mr.. Silliman protested against hav-
ing the defendant placed in such a po-
sition, when It had only given notice OF
motion for new trial Finally. with
consent of the Court, he filed the fol-
lowing refusal to accept the terms Of
the decision
Refusal to accept suggestion Of
Court to remit portion of verdict.
Now comes the defendant. Homo
lulu Plantation Company, and declines
to remit from the verdict rendered
herein the sum Of thirty thousand dol
lars as suggested in the decision and
| order of the court filed in this cause on
Saturday, the 25th day Of January.
1902.
Honolulu Plantation Company, by
its attorneys, Hatch & Sllliman."
At the request of Mr.. Dunno tho
Court now set the date for new trial.
Mr.. Silliman then read the bill OF
exceptions nearly through, when Judge
Estee ordered Stenographer Reynolds
to strike the part so far taken off his
record Clerk Mailing had previously
declined to file the exceptions in open
court without leave, and this Judge
Estee would not give. After ADJOURN
ment Mr.. Silllman filed the exceptions
as follows in the clerks office:
Now comes the defendant. the Ho-
nolulu Plantation Company. and ex.
cepts to the decision and order of the
court upon the plaintiffs motion for a
new trial. which said decision was filed
On Saturday, the 25th day Of January
A. d. 1902. upon the following grounds.
u. That said decision is contrary to
law.
"2. That said decision is in contra
vention of the Seventh Amendment OF
the Constitution of the United States,
! which provides that no fact tried by 0
jury shall be otherwise re-eXamined In
any court of the United States than
| 20 Ia, nr an ,f,f,
law.
"3. That said decision Is in contra
vention of the Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States
which provides that private property
shall not be taken for public use with
out Just compensation.
~. That said decision is based upon
an erroneous view of the law relating
to the denomination of an issue OF
fact tried by jury
IS. That said decision Is based upon
an erroneous assumption that the YER
dict OF jury should be set aside and
new trial granted when the presiding
Judge believes that the verdict Is moi
in accordance with the preponderanc'
of the evidence.
&c. That said decision is based upOr
an erroneous Interpretation Of certain
written documents received in evidenc,
in this case, to wit. the tax returns o
the Honolulu Plantation Company TO
, the years 1900 and 1901.
, ~. That the statement of facts con
: tained in said decision and on whicl
the same Is based is inaccurate and Il
} not an impartial review and summar!
. OF the evidence adduced and proceed
ings had upon the trial of said case.
: IS. That the presiding judge render
Ing said decision did not exercise
. legal discretion in reviewing the evi
; dence adduced and proceedings had II
] this cause, and in granting said motion
T for a new trial"