The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1902-05-16
WILL DELAY
THE WORK
Pearl tiarbor Case
Goes to Ninth
Circuit.
From Wednesdays dany)

Iy the decision OF Judge Estee yes
tnrday In refusing new trial in the
case OF United States vs. Honolulu
Plantation CO.. the Pearl Harbor ma
val station appears to be further from
iruitlOn than ever An appeal Is to
Ia taken Immediately to the Ninth Cir
.uIt Court of Appeals at san Fran
CISCO, but 1t will be months before a
decision can be expected. The Bishop
estate case Is now before that court
N 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
Of the intention of the Government not
to rush the Pearl Harbor buildings to
completion. AS the Secretary of the
Navy refused a compromise at $4,000
for this leasehold interest he evidently
viii exhaust every possible means to
secure 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
here, and the experience with the two
juries that have already passed upon
the case leads to little hope OF ma
terial reduction in the valuation by a
third jury The question Of a trial to
the court only will not be presented
upon appeal.
After a review of the proceedings in
the two cases and of the grounds for
the second motion for a new trial,
Judge Estee concludes his opinion as
follows:
THE verdict in the first case was
sl05,00 and it was deemed excessive
by the court. who for that reason
granted new trial unless the defend
ant would accept a diminished amount
namely, $4,000. This the defendant de-
clined to do and the second trial was
therefore had, resulting in the verdict
Of $l03,523. 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
as presented to the mind of the court.
And while it seems to be well 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. If in its discretion it sees
fit to do so. yet the consensus of the
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 If 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, so
Fed. 37l-5. Clark VS.. Barney Dumping
Co, 1903 Fed. 235.
Il may say in this case, as was said
by the court in the case of Frost VS.
Brown, Bay. 1879, where as in the case
at bar two trials were had, resulting
practically in the same verdict-that
although | would never surrender a
plain and certain rule of law to the
caprice of a jury or any number of
juries, yet in "A case where the law Is
complicated with facts so that the con-
structon and application of it must
depend on the findings of facts, two
concurring verdicts even against the
opinion of the Judges, ought to be con-
elusive. Joyce VS.. Charleston Manu-
featuring Co., supra.
II have made an examination of the
very lengthy assignment of errors of
law alleged to have occurred at the
trial of the case, and have read with
much care the elaborate brief of the
counsel for complainant. in addition to
the brief of defendants counsel. do
not, however, deem it necessary to go
into an exhaustive discussion of those
alleged errors. No reason has been pre-
scented to me which I think is suffi-
GENTLY forceful to lead me to change
my views as indicated by my rulings
at the trial; and while some slight err
rors may have and doubtless did creep
into the record, yet find none which,
in my judgment, were material or so
prejudicial to the interests of the COM
plalnant as to have materially infu-
enced the verdict of the jury.
THE motion for new trial Is there
fore denied.
"ESTEE, Judge"