The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-05-13
DECISION
DUE TODAY
.Estee to Pass Upon
Pearl HarbOr
Case.
SlLLIMAN FILES
HIS REPLY BRIEF
Says Judge Has Exercised Discre-
ton Once and Matter Should
Go TO Appellate Court.

Judge Estee will render his decisio
this morning upon the motion for
new trial in the case OF the Unite
States VS.. Honolulu Plantation Co. TIL
reply brief OF the defendant was file
Saturday. there having been some mis-
understanding as to the length OF tim
allowed the attorneys for such actor
Judge Silliman's argument is conse
queniIy brief. but TO the point.
Judge Silliman argues: I'm the frs
| place IL Is seldom that a court feel
justified In setting aside the verde
of jury where the verdict has beer
rendered by fair and disinterested citi
gems. is fairly within the range OF th'
testimony produced upon the trial anC
Is substantially equal in amount TO a
! former verdict rendered by an intelli-
4 gent and disinterested jury"
Various incidents Of the second trial
| are given as reasons for not granting
\ the motion made by the Government
First there was the failure OF the
United States 10 call Allan Herbert rs
n witness in the second trial. though
he was n fair-minded witness at the
FIRST hearing: then there IL the valua-
fion OF sieO. 600. given by Archer. plain
tifr's witness. which is near the amount
found by the jury. Another incident
Of the second trial was the calling OF
the McCandiess brothers. who admit
ted that they were hostile 10 the man
aEeT OF the defendant"
But the most forcibie consideration
that we would urge upon the court"
continues the attorney. lis that all the
decisions. including those cited by
counsel FOR the Government. and which
will be referred - more in detail here
after. hold that where two verdicts
have been rendered upon substantially
similar evidence. In amounts that are
approximately the same. the court will
not disturb tl.e verdict. but will leave
the matter COR the Appellate Court To-
whether there has been any
error IN the application OF the law To
ihe ease. So much for the difference
In the situation IN which the case now
stands and IN which u stood at the
close of the last trial.
''COunseis first argument in the brief
- To- the effect that this land was un-
cultivated some few years ago and not
used spr plantation purposes. The
~ me argument might be made as to
the water front in san Francisco. be-
tween Montgomery street and the fer
rics and because . few years ago that
land was washed by The waves and not
used for commercial purposes. IL might
b. argued that the Chronicle building
vas Of no value. or that the Mills
was Of no more value than the
sSTf-washed rocks beyond the Clim
House. That because the Indians not
many years ago encamped upon the
site of the city OF Chicago that the
Whole city ought 20 be condemned and
ialued upon the basis of It's value as
IA Indian camping place.
III the argument - good as to- a
,iecc Of land adapted To cane. but
= hich had not been brought into use
"me years ago. u Is equally good as To
my city In the United States. because
{ only needs a little more time To carry
hem all back 20 where the property
vas Of little or 10 value
Counsel denies that the land in ques-
ION has been placed upon a pedestal
nd says: III IS argued that the land
vas not beautiful. that the coast line
: sinuOus. and portions thereof marshy.
IN We have To say in answer To this
rRument - that We are not. as was
ounsei IN the Bishop estate case. at
tmpting 10 lay before this court, nor
"a We attempt 10 lay before the jury.
ny suburban site. although We do
hinh that the mountains are pictur-
sque. the breeze from the harbor cool
iE. and that the camp site Is ideally
situated for - suburban village. "A campi
,r "a plantation. a slte for offices and
fsidences 81 a naval commandant and
1bOTdinates. or any other similar use
. which u Nigh; b. desired 10 put the
no"
After quoting numerous authorities
Atmsg EF.mfhnaa u rIsg Frf4N soil
includes: In tins case the evidence
'ok wide range. the valuations were
.-tified e. from various points OF view
nd upon the different hypothetical
aesiions asked. and theories enter
lined by the Government and the de-
ndant. and the duty OF weighing all
'is testimony and arriving at the right
IN. matter vas left 70 the jury IN
.r instructions that were certainly
u calculated To misiead them 10 the
'cjudice OF the Government.
The Witnesses called for the defend
,, were men Of high standing In the :.
whose verbal promises are
ken everywhere as equal TO their 81.
md. they were men who were Ger
iniy best qualified of any citizens OF Il
- community 90 express an opinion "A
on the issues on trial In this case j
be- whole matter was submitted 20
. jury upon a charge carefully pre-
rcd by the court. and we do not be- -
We that there Was any ruling made =,
any portion % the charge given. that ..
~ In any way calculated 20 prejudice
? rights Of the Government. but. on
P contrary. Ne believe that the Gov -
nment interests were fully and care
~ guarded both BY the rulings made
ring the reception OF the evidence
q the instructions given 20 "a. jury
the close OF the case.
We submit that the verdict ought
: 90 be set aside upon the motion Of