The Hawaiian gazette., 1902-03-14

OF ltfF.
Dated Honolulu, Hawaii, March II. /
1902. a. BARNES,
Foreman Of said Jury. I.
Alr. Dunno rose Immediately and on
behalf Of the government, noted eNcep- .
lions on the ground that the verdict
was excessive, and contrary To the evil .
dence and instructions OF the court. /
lie gave notice of intention to file a
motion for new trial. MIR. +. w. Mil .
verton. on behalf OF the Honolulu PLAN
tation Company, also excepted to the
verdict, but stated that he did so to
preserve the rights OF the defendant
until Manager Low had been commun-
icated with. He believed, however,
that the verdict was entirely satisfac.
tory, and that the motion for new
trial would not be made
! Judge Estee then thanked the jury
men for their earnest and careful at
tention and excused them for the term.
The fine Of 1891 imposed upon one OF
! the jurors for being late was RENTED.
THE EARLY PROCEEDINGS.
Upon the opening OF court and of
Judge Silliman's argument to the jury
there was a scene not down on the pro-
gram. Mr. Dunno, on the day pre-
q with "A denunciation of the plantation
men who had testified for the defend
ant. and Mr.. Slliman, when it came
! to his turn, replied in kind. He said
that the United States was not building
/ the naval station for the benefit OF Ha-
I wall but for its own good, and for the
protection of the Pacific coast. As for
T the distribution of money in the ISL
/ ands Silliman said that the United
States was taking away n million and
a quarter i'm customs duties annually,
and spending very little of 1t here.
Though loving the United States, which
was his native country, he contended
/ that II was an outrage on the part OF
its representatives to attempt to take
this Pearl Harbor land without AIDE
quate compensation. The United States
was well able TO pay for it, and the
people OF the Territory should be treat
ed with fairness, which he contended,
had not been the general policy of the
central government toward this coun-
try or its people. nor was 1t treating
the defendant in this case properly. Mr..
Silliman was finally interrupted by the
Court with the remark that he should
discuss the case and not the United
States. Mr.. Dunno Clipped in that ne
couldn't sit still and hear the United
States assalteu III tnat manner. Tie
argument finally proceeded without
further interruption.
The jury was instructed, at the con-
clusion of Mr.. DUNES address, very
much on the lines laid down in the first
trial. Judge Estee described the con-
demned property, and the various leas-
es, by which 1t came into the posses
. utA nf hA nj hn it,rt
instructed that it could not consider
the mere speculative or possible value
, OF sugar that might be produced in the
future on this land"
All improvements on the land, the
| Court instructed the jury. became the
property OF the Bishop Estate upon the
termination Of the lease. Instructions
: were given also not to consider the
, mill, pumping plants, or anything not
upon the SCI acres to be condemned.
The written admission of the defend
ant, in the form of tax returns, and
the statement filed with the Treasurer.
the jury was also instructed to con-
slider. The jury was further instructed:
1T Is also your duty TO consider that
that this land is not now appropriated
TO any valuable use, thai =. is not now
producing a crop"
Testimony relative to favorable
places for wharves along the line of
. the property the jury was instructed
to ignore, on the ground that the Unit
ed States already owned those rights
by virtue of a treaty with King Kala-
kaua. In conclusion the Court said: a.
II will be seen by the terms of said
treaty OF 1887 that the United States
then secured the exclusive right to the
,.lNgN.,
and so while private parties may own
land bordering on these waters, the
waters themselves have belonged to the
United States since the date of that
treaty.
therefore instruct you that in
reaching n verdict you are not to con-
) slider or place any value upon said in
land waters as belonging to tire pri-
waite parties now litigating with the
: United States government, because al
Y though the treaty made bC tween the
Kingdom of Hawaii and the United
states OF America In 1887, by which
Pearl Harbor was ceded to the United
: states did not In any way affect pri-
e waite ownership in the lands fronting
on said harbor. those parties have nc
\ interest other than that OF every citi-
zen of the United States in the sloughs
D and waters Of Pearl Harbor, for these
inland waters are LOW and since 1887
have been the property OF the United
States.
= In conclusion let me say to YOU that
the evidence in this case is very con-
C flicting, and without commenting upor
the testimony of any one witness,
I instruct you that in considering the
e testimony of all the witnesses in thi.
case, you may accept such portion!
g thereof as you may believe to be true
t or reject such portions thereof as yot
e may believe to be false, II the state
a merits OF any one or more witnesses
II are So unreasonable or improbable al
d that upon their face they do not carr,
d conviction Of their truth to your minds
= YOU are liberty to reject all or any par
II thereof (S5 n. Y, SD.
n Geruemen Of the jury, under tn