Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-01-11

IN trial in a court OF law, and are
permitted TO state only facts within
tneir knowledge, yet, as in this case,
evidence Is sometimes permitted to ne
| introduced in the way OF opinions OF
those witnesses VINO have shown
themselves qualified IRON their tamil.
larlty with a given subject to make
clear questions which arse during the
course OF trial and winch belong TO
some special occupation.
The Expert Testimony.
| In this case certain so.CaIud expert
| testimony mas been introduced, UuJ 1
instruct you that It is your province
10 weigh the testimony OI the wit.
ncsscs whose OPINIONS nave been given
upon the subject o. the vaIue OI de-
Iendant lcasenOld interest IN TINS
Jana, by reference to the whole situa-
ton OF that portion OF the property
sought to be condemned by the Unit
ed states upon wnICn this leasenOld
interest exists, and by applying to ali
these circumstances your own knOwl.
edge and general experience. The ev.
iuenCc OF experts as to value does not
differ in principle from the evidence
OF experts upon other subjects. Tnen
oO lar lIblu ldNlHE dSlut sOul OWN
knowledge and ideas, you may apply
that general knowledge and those
ideas to the matters OF fact in evil
dence, in this case, determining the
weight to be given TO the opinions eX.
pressed.
And while the jury cannot act in
any case upon particular facts mate.
rial to its disposition, resting only
within their private knowledge, but
should be governed by the evidence
adduccd. yet they should Judge of the
weight and force of that evidence by
their own general knowledge of the
subject; and although great weight
should always be given to the opinion
honestly expressed of those familiar
with the subject, they are to be intel.
| ligently examined by the jury in the
light of their own personal knowledge.
giving force and control only to the
extent that they are found to be reas.
enable. Head vs.. Hargraye. lO5 U.
S. 49, In brief, the jury is not bound
to give weight to testimony which il
contrary to what every person OF good
sense and ordinary intelligence knows
to be true.
Visit to the Lands.
Gentlemen of the jury, early in the
trial you visited the lands sought ia
| be condemned. The object of such
| visit was that you might familiarize
| yourselves with the nature and extent
Of the land, and its physical conditions
and characteristics. so as to better en-.
able you to understand the evidence
on the trial of the case. The knowl.
edge so acquired may be used by you
In determining the weight of conflict.
ing testimony respecting the value 81
the leasehold interest in these lands.
but not otherwise.
Some evidence has been introduced
by the Government tending to show
certain valuations of this leasehold
interest, sworn to by the defendant.
through its manager, Mr.. Low, before
the commencement Of these proceed.
ings, to wit. certain tax returns filed
with the assessor pursuant to the law
of the Territory. Such sworn returns
II duly made by the representative Of
the defendant. to the assessor. are
called in law. admissions against in
terest, and are competent evidence
tending to show the then market val.
ne of the property. You NAV there.
fore consider such returns along with
the other evidence In the case bearing
upon the question OF value of this
property, and give to II such weight
as to you may seem Just.
Proving Market Value.
further instruct you that the bur-
den of proving the market value OF the
interest of the defendant in the lands
in question is upon the plaintiff; in
other words, the claim OF plaintiff as
to the amount OF compensation SO to
be awarded to the defendant by your
verdict must be proven by the plain
tin by a preponderance of the eyi.
dence.
BY a preponderance of the evidence
| is not meant, gentlemen. the evidence
given by the greater number OF wit.
nesses, but the superior strength OF
certain evidence and the greater
weight which such evidence may in
your judgment have.
Weighing the Witnesses.
You should take into consideration
the opportunities OF the various wit.
nesses Tor seeing or knowing the
things about which they testified; also
their interest or lack OF interest in the
result OF the action, the probability or
improbability of the truth OF their sew.
cral statements in view OF all the 9th.
er evidence adduced or circumstances
shown upon the trial, and from all OF
the circumstances determine upon
which side the weight or the prepon.
derance of the evidence rests. But ar.
bitrary or Jumping methods OF assess.
ing damages for the taking of proper.
~ are to be condemned.
Influence Of Treaties.
Defendant has asked Tor certain in.
structions arising out OF the treaties
entered into between the hlngdom oil
Hawaii ana the United States Govern.
ment in 1887. and ip refusing TO give
any but one OF said instructions, /
think II proper to state to the Jury,
that in the year 1875 and again in
1887, two treaties were negotiated be.
tween the Government OF Hawaii then
represented by King Kalakaua, and
the Republic OF the United States by
which the latter Government granted
reciprocity to Hawaiian sugar and
otner articles produced in Hawaii.
In the treaty stipulations of 1887, oil
which treaty stipulations this Court
must take judicial cognizance, it was
prescribed by Artile II thereof. as fol.
lows:
His Majesty, the King of the Ha-
waiian Islands, grants to the Govern.
]