The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-05-14
WILL DELAY
THE WORK
Pearl Harbor Case
Goes to Ninth
Circuit.
MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL IS DENIED
The Honolulu Plantation Co. Case
Will Go to San Francisco.
Effect of Decision.

BY the decision of Judge Estee yes
terday In refusing a new trial in the
case OF United States VS.. Honolulu
Plantation Co.. the Pearl Harbor ma
val station appears to be further from
fruition than ever. An appeal Is "a
be taken immediately To- the Ninth Cir
cult Court OF Appeals at San Fran
cisco. but Il will be months before a
decision can be expected. The Bishop
on an appeal by the defendant. though
the United States can take possession
OF the land by paying the amount OF
| the judgment into court.
The appeal OF the United States in
the Honolulu Plantation Co. case will
/ further delay work at the naval sta
| ton. and can be taken as an Indication
or the intention OF the Government not
| TO rush the Pearl HarbOr buildings 10
completion. AS the Secretary of the
/ Navy refused n compromise at SOC. 600
| for this leasehoid interest he evidently
VIII exhaust every possible means to
secure a lower price. Even a reversal
OF Judge Estee on law points by the
Ninth Circuit Court OF Appeals would
result only In an order for "A new trial
juries that have already passed upon
the case leads To little hope of n ma
terial reduction in the valuation by a
third jury. The question OF a trial to
the court only VIII not be presented
upon appeal.
After a review OF the proceedings in
the two cases and OF the grounds fqT
the second motion for a new trial. |
Judge Estee concludes his opinion as
follows:
The verdict in the first case was |
siO5. 200. and IL was deemed excessive l
by the court. who for that reason /
granted a new trial unless the defend
ant would accept a diminished amount.
namely. $4,000. This the defendant de-
ciined 10 do and the second trial was
therefore had. resulting in the verdict
Of Si0s.523. as before stated. This
amount the court also believes TO be
excessive above the sum OF $4,000. in
view Of all the testimony In the case
"a presented to the mind OF the court.
And while II seems To- be we'll settled
that under the law the court can again
set this verdict aside and grant a new
trial upon the same terms as In the
former trial. IL in It's discretion IL sees
Mt 20 do so. Yet the consensus OF the
best judgment OF the courts as found
In the decisions Is. that where no rule
OF law has been violated. the court will
not. after two concurring verdicts
grant a new trial II the questions to
be tried depend wholly on matters OF
fact. although the verdict Is. in the
Judgment OF the court. against the
weight OF the evidence. Joyce vs.
Charleston Ice Manufacturing Co, 80
Fed. 37i-5. Clark VS.. Barney Dumping
Co. 100 Fed. 235.
Il may say in this case. as was said
by the court In the case Of Frost vs.
Brown. Bay. 139. where as in the case
AZ bar two trials were had. resulting ,
in the same Verdict-that |
l would never surrender
plain and certain rule of law TO the
'aprice OF a jury or any number OF
uries. yet in a case where the law is :
with facts so that the con-
'truction and application of il must
iepend on the findings OF facts. two &
oncurring verdicts even against the .
opinion OF the Judges. ought to be con-
lusive- Joyce vs.. Charleston Manu-
acturing Co. supra.
Il have made an examination of the
cry lengthy assignment OF errors OF
aw alleged to have occurred at the
rial OF the case. and have read with
luch care the elaborate brief of the
ounsel for complainant. in addition 10
he brief OF defendants counsel. / do
OF. however. deem IL necessary to go
Ito an exhaustive discussion OF those
legged errors. No reason has been pre-
ented to me which i think is suffi-
emily forceful TO lead me 10 change "
" views as indicated by my rulings
/ the trial: and while some slight err q
RS may have and doubtless did creep RI
TO the record. yet I find none which.
my judgment. were material or so ~
-ejudicial 10 the interests OF the COM
ainant as 10 have materially innu-
reed the verdict Of the jury.
The motion FOR new trial is there
re denied.
"ESTEE. Judge"