The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-01-22
THE JURY.
DID WRONG
Mr.. Dunno Files Ills
Pearl Harbor
Brief.
SAYS VERDICT
IS EXCESSIVE
Attempt TO Shcw Value OF Lease
to be But S28 so an
Acre.

The brief OF OHlteI States <AIloi ny
Dunno in support OF the motion for
new trial in the case OF United states
VS.. Honolulu Plantation Co, was filed
Yesterday. Mr.. Dunne's principal con-
tention is as to the alleged excessive
and extravagant valuation placed by
the Jury upon the condemned land. IN
dependentIy of the conjectureS OF par
tisan experts says plaintiff, 1T Is
plain that the land in question IS re-
duced in value by being subjected to
the burden of the railroad easement.
There is nothing homogeneous about
this land; it varies in availability, pro-
ductiveness and depth of soil. Moth
ing is more vital to the success OF q
plantation than water. but this land
has no natural water supply, and It's
only artificial water supply is restrict
ed to Just one small brackish arteSlan
we'll The place IL barren of improve
ments. The land is undeveloped ana
INFESTED. 1t has never been cropped; Its
capabilities are pure matters OF guess
and speculation. In brief this piece oil
land never has been put to any useful
purpose, has been a source of expense
for rent and taxes and has never pro-
duced one dollar of income.
The character Of plaintiffs witnesses
and the interest of defendants wit
uesses is set out, together with the
lump values placed upon the land by
the latter The testimony of Low as
to value is referred to as Lows gym
nastics" and his four different valua-
lions are also set out. These stories
cannot all be true" says Mr.. Dunno.
And il is interesting to inquire what
is to be thought Of the case which Is
to descend to such shifts and
disingenuous shuffling as this"
Mr.. Dunno figures from the $4,000
paid for the lease of $500 acres for forty
years that the lease of the land in
question is worth $3.50 an acre. But
even this is Offset, he claims. by the
heavy discount.
l. The sol acres never had an an
nual use.
q They never had a yearly value.
g. They had never been cleared,
plowed. sowed or cropped.
4. Nearly one-half is useless and I'M
fit for cultivation.
>. They never produced any income
whatever.
never has been cultivated. that never
TdtSeQ d CIOp, anu WAVoS SN'"SAAAN-0
are purely speculative.
Z. Shallow soil, rocky patches,
marshy spots.
S. No water supply beyond one small
brackish artesian we'll
.. Railroad easement.
10. No improvements. Neither the
mill nor the pumping plant is on TINS
land. They are both Independent. and
built prior to the clearing and plough
ing. They would have been built any
way, whether the defendant got this
land or not, as they were both indls-
pensable to the other 5000 acres of the
plantation.
IL Until recently this land was Il
waste, overrun by cattle. 1t was not
subjected TO any useful purpose, wheth-
er for transportation, storage, repair
shop, or other purposes or as living
ground for employees.
u. These SCI acres never had any
influence, whether for good or bad,
upon the remainder of the plantation.
They neither produced nor contributed
anything TO the annual use of the
plantation.
10. Even on the assumption that
these acres are as good as the rest, the
Dowsett lease transaction shows that
$3.50 PEI. acre is a fair valuation upon
defendants own conduct and judgment
in the purchase of that lease.
Mr.. Dunno refers also to the refusal
of the request to allow Juror kohn TO
view the land, but ignores the charge
of relationship to defendants attorney
He argues also that the finding as 10
Improvement was wrong, and says that
cultivation cannot be counted an I'M
provement, and that the general law as
to fixtures would compel the surrender
to the Bishop Estate of all improve
ments upon the expiration of the lease.
Furthermore, there was no evidence
upon which the jury could base its fis-
ureS.
II rely upon the principle that the
compensation should be just" says MT
Dunno. 1t should not be unjust. un-
fair or excessive. But the verdict IN
this case is grossly excessive because
the jury added on s15.20s for improve
ments which did not exist or of Whlch
no market value was proved. ANA
moreover the jury went to extravagant
lengths in the amount which 1T FOUND
for the value of the leasehold."
In conclusion reference is made to the
valuations upon different plantations
made by the managers, and the dis
crepancy in the figures is pointed out
Mr. Silliman will probably submit ms
reply brief today or tomorrow