The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1902-01-24

Demurrer Set for Hearing.
ON the application OF Attorney
Wade Warren Thayer in the United
States District Court yesterday morn
ing Judge Es,ee appointed W. II
johnson. 2. r. Burnett and c. r
Hemenvay appraisers 20 appraise the
real property Of j. r. Schneider
bankrupt It developed tina; Referee
Fleming had appointed two appraisers
60 do the work.
Judge Estee reminded the attorney
of "a previous ruling that appraisers
must De appointed by the court. to re-
port 90 the court. II turned out that
the appraisers appointed by Referee
Fleming had been chosen as experts
and had completed their work. The
court declared that such proceedings
were not in accordance with the stat.
utes and such irregularities could not
be endorsed Il was a case of the
referee uycrruling the court
Attorney Thsyer Explains.
Attorney Thayor explained TO the
court that the appraisers in question
were appointed before the court had
mad, an order in that regard Judge
Estee said howyer that that made
no difference and that the court
would not approve of anything not
done I'M conformity with the bank.
uptry law
Referee Fleming was the subject OF
much cood naturei raillery in the
Judiciary building yesterday and was
acoostcd 10y numbers Of his friends as
one who had "overruIed'' the United
States District Court.
"a, Judge silIiman's Brief.
Hatch & Snliman's reply brief in
the Pearl Harbor land condemnation
case OF the United States against the
Honolulu Plantation Company is, in
part as follows:
The verdict was probably unsatis-
factory 20 both parties to this litiga-
ton. Defendant felt it should receive
"a larger sum and believed evidence
required a verdict in the amount
claimed. 100000
Plaintiff called but two witnesses
ON the question of value and TO one
Of those witnesses a hypothetical
question was put in no way justified
by the situation OF the land as ii ac-
tuaIly existed. The question assum-
ed that there was no mill in connec
tion with the land and that there was
no water supply and expressly stated
that the witness must assume that the
only visible source OF water supply
was q single srtesian we'll. and the
witness was asked what would be "A
fair Price 20 pay a fair market price
TO pay. for that strip OF land The
question was manifestly argumenta-
tive and unfair in its assumptions.
As 90 the other witness. An OBJ
vious EFFORT was made by counsel for
plainta 70 force certain valuation
upon him which he refused to assent
10. but counsel now assumes. in VIC
lation OF the whole record that the
witness testified 20 a valuation which
he never admitted and which he fiat
ly denied. Counsel says that Mr..
Herbert testified that the valuation OF
the land was SIS per acre for sac
acres and SIS for the remaining sls.
but an examination OF the transcript
will show that counsel was mistaken.
Is it not signihcan; that only two
witnesses. having no special qualif-
cations. were called by the Govern
ment on the question Of value.
Injunction Writ issued.
4 writ OF injunction mas oSen IS
sued 10 II. a. Juen and his wife.
Esther p. Jusn. in the cancellation
and accounting suit brought by kaui-
Lazarus. The First Circuit
Court commands that respondents re
rain from eisposing OF their prop
srty
II has been stipulated that petit
TONER may file an amended bill OF
-omplsiat and that defendants may
have ten DAYS thereafter in which 10
rlead. Bond OF indemnity upon the
granting of the writ of injunction
has been fled by Ksuimakaole Lsza-
rus. as principal. and Joseph Clark.
3s smeiy.
Wants Bill Of Particulars.
s,s-sa,,. 4, tha aSSf,nrsff case ~