The Hawaiian gazette., 1902-05-12
COURT NOTES.

|".. ""|N
thH friae ulHn iht moffu flf a
rev tfal in tht tHs0 0f t'H iuIffi
piaffn w. U1nHiuiu IiiantatlHn ~ ThH
fsrs brief M the attendant tai nifi
Fatur.lsy there hatinr been u.fnn Ws.
understanding ae tn the lnnfth ~ tu"
allowed the attorneys far such action.
Judrc siiiimans argument r'nse-
oufntiy brief but o. fhn puIni
judge SULLIVAN argues In the fret
place ID u seldom that q court feels
Justified In setting aside the verdict
81 a Jury where the verdict has been
rendered by fair and dislntercsted citi-
zens. o. fairly within the range ~ the
testimony produced upon the trial and
Is substantially equal In amount to
former verdict rendered by an intelli-
gent and dislnterested jury
Various incidents OF the second trial
are given as reasons for not granting
the motion made by the Government
First there was the failure Of the
United States to call Allan Herbert as
a witness In the second trial. though
he was a fair-minded witness at the
first hearing; then there Is the valua-
ton Of 100000, given by Archer. plain
tin"s witness. which Is near the amount
found by the jury. Another incident
of the second trial was the calling Of
the McCandless brothers "who admit
ted that they were hostile 10 the man
ager Of the defendant
But the most forcible consideration
that we would urge upon the court,
continues the attorney, lis that all the
decisions, including those cited by
counsel for the Government, and which
viii be referred to more in detail here
after, hold that where two verdicts
have been rendered upon substantially
similar evidence, i'm amounts that are
approximately the same, the court Will
not disturb the verdict. but will leave
the matter for the Appellate Court to
determine whether there has been any
error in the application OF the law to
the case. SO much for the difference
in the situation in which the case now
stands and in which II stood at the
close of the last trial.
"Counsel's first argument in the brief
is to the effect that this land was UNI
cultivated some few years ago and not
used for plantation purposes. The
same argument might be made as to
the water front in San Francisco, be-
tween Montgomery street and the fer
ries, and because few years ago that
land was washed by the waves and not
used for commercial purposes, II might
be argued that the Chronicle building
was of no value, or that the Mills
building was of no more value than the
surf-washed rocks beyond the Cliff
House. That because the Indians not
many years ago encamped upon the
site of the city of Chicago that the
whole city ought to be condemned and
valued upon the basis of It's value as
an Indian camping place. ID
IF the argument Is good az to
piece of land adapted to cane, but
which had not been brought into use
some years ago, it is equally good as to
any city in the United States, because
it only needs a little more time to carry
them all back to where the property
was of little or no value"
Counsel denies that the land in ques
ton has been placed upon pedestal
and says: 1T Is argued that the land
was not beautiful, that the coast line
Is sinuous, and portions thereof marshy.
All we have to say in answer to this
argument is that we are not, as was
counsel in the Bishop estate case, at
tempting to lay before this court, nor
did we attempt to lay before the jury,
any suburban site, although we do
think that the mountains are pictur-
esque, the breeze from the harbor cool
ing, and that the camp site is ideally
situated for a suburban village, a camp
for a plantation, a site for offices and
residences of a naval commandment and
subordinates, or any other similar use
to which 1t might be desired to put the
land"
a,,th n, 81 tny
against granting a new trial, counsel
concludes: I'm this case the evidence
took a wide range, the valuations were
testified to from various points OF view
and upon the different hypothetical
questions asked, and theories enter
tanned by the Government and the de-
PENDANT, and the duty OF weighing all
this testimony and arriving at the right
Of the matter was left to the jury I'M
der instructions that were certainly
not calculated to mislead them to the
prejudice of the Government.
THE witnesses called for the defend
ant were men OF high standing in the
community whose verbal promises are
taken everywhere as equal to their
bond; they were men who were GER
tainly best qualified of any citizens of
this community to express an opinion
upon the issues on trial in this case.
The whole matter was submitted to
the jury upon a charge carefully pre-
pared by the court, and we do not be-
lieve that there was any ruling made
or any portion of the charge given that
was In any way calculated to prejudice
the rights of the Government. but on
the contrary, We believe that the Gov
eminent interests were fully and care
fully guarded both by the rulings made
during the reception Of the evidence
and the instructions given to the jury
at the close of the case.
I'VE submit that the verdict ough,
not TO be set aside upon the motion OF
the plaintiff and petitioner"
LOCAL BREVlTIES.