Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-01-26
Judge Estee's Decision
IN CASE OF.
Honolulu Plantation Co.

was luItndstu Oill lbhN W Inv ANAN''A
ant, including all rents fully paid up
for the sum of $4,000. This lease
then and now covering, inclusive OF the
5Gl.2 acres in controversy some 29vO
acres Of land, OF which the defendant
is now in possession under sad lease
and much of which is being cultivated.
There is no testimony that this land
has ever produced any income aud
that while 342 acres of the 5Gl.2 have
been cleared, it has never 5eCh suit
vaied to cane nor has any crop ever
Gctr produced upon it. ANl while Il
nay be possible to raise cane IN this
lunI or part of it. with plenyy "t wa
ter, yet it is shallow and much Of 1t
Is GdObe.
The testimony of the eight wit
nesses called for defendant as eN'
pcrts, as to the value of this leasehold
interest, varied in amounts from S4OC,'
/ 600 to s239, 400. In the mini Of tho
Court, these estimates were cXagger.
atoms and were greatly in excess Of
any value shown to be possessed by
this leasehold interest by the party
chiefly in interest, the defendant
through its Manager MIR. Low. They
were mainly Jumping estimates of the
value Of the property and apparently
purely speculative, based upon what
this land might possibly produce un
der given conditions not shown to eX
Y list, and from careful examination OF
the testimony Of at least four of these
witnesses (Mr. Ahrens, Mr.. Goodale
MIR. Renton and Mr.. Mayors, all OF
whom were plantation managers), 1t
will be seen that in each instance a
value is fixed upon this leasehold in
terest of 56l.2 acres, far in excess of
the amount Of the valuation approx.
mately placed upon the lands Of the
plantations in which they were each
managers. and in some of them large.
ly interested. These latter planta.
lions had long been cropped with cane
and are all producing incomes now,
while no income has ever been pro.
duced from this land nor any cane
grown thereon.
Neither the jury nor the Court Is
bound by the opinions of expert wit
|, nesses unless they are in harmony
with the weight of the testimony; but
may consider them IN connection with
. all the other facts in evidence.
In view of all the circumstances, a
new trial might possibly be properly
, had. AS has been before stated, upon
, the rendition OF the verdict in the
r case a demand for a new trial was
!. made by both counsel for plaintif
4 and defendant, neither of whom was
satisfied with the verdict of the jury
/. However, upon a careful cOnsidera
}. ton of the reasons advanced both fol
, and against the motion made by the
plaintiff, and after lengthy eXamina
ton of the whole of the record fnclud
ing the testimony offered on behalf OF
both parties and OF the able briefs
, filed herein, | am Of the opinion that
, the amount of the verdict rendered By
: the jury Is excessive and not in con
formlty with the weight OF the evi
dCnCe. This Court would not inter
pose its judgment in opposition tc
that OF the jury by expressing al
: amount which in its opinion would be
10, la .,
OF the defendant But II the jury haC
, returned a verdict in any amount MOI
- to exceed $4,000, this Court woulc
have allowed a judgment to have beer
y entered in accordance Herewith.
1t is therefore the judgment OF the
, Court that If the defendant remit.
: from the verdict rendered in its favol
. 100000, leaving the sum of $75, 600 a!
full compensation for its damages o
every kind and character in this case
- then the motion made by the plaintiff
for new trial will he denied. Thi
Z" election must be made by the defend
y ant within three days from the dat,
. hereof by the filing with the clerk o
" this Court a written consent to tn,
" modification Of the verdict in that PAL
ticular, and the entry of a judgmen
" in accordance herewith. Otherwis
" new trial will be granted.
ESTEE, Judge.
= January 25th 1909.
~