The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1902-05-13
ESTEE'S VIEW
STILL THE SAME
PEARL HARBOR VERDICT TOO
HIGH, BUT RETRIAL Is
REFUSED.
WILL NOT SET ASIDE TWO YER
Diets OF JURIES.
Honolulu Plantation Case Now Goes
to the Ninth Circuit Court Of
Appeals.

Judge Estee this morning overruled
the motion for a new trial of the case
of the United States against the Homo
lulu Plantation Company. The Judge
still holds to his opinion that the YER
olct is excessive and that SO, 900 is all
that should be awarded, but he says
that in view of two jury verdicts for
about the same sum, it is the rule to
allow the verdict to stand. The deci-
sion is in part as follows:
This case has been twice tried be-
fore jury the object being to fix the
value of the defendants leasehold in
terest in the 561.2 acres Of land descrlb-
ed in the complaint; and in both cases
lhe Verdicts were practically the same
The difference in amount being nom
inal
The verdict in the first case was
100000 and it was deemed excessive by
the court, who for that reason granted
new trial unless the defendant would
accept a diminished amount namely,
$4,000. This the defendant declined to
do and the second trial was therefore
had, resulting in the verdict of S1O3, 523
as before stated. This amount the
court also believes to be excessive
above the sum of $4,000. in view of all
The testimony in the case as present
ed to the mind of the Court. And while
it seems to be well settled that under
the law the Court can again set this
verdict aside and grant a new trial up-
on the same terms as i'm the former
trial. If in its discretion it sees fit to do
SO, yet the consensus of the best judg-
ment of the courts as found in the de-
CisiOns is, that where no rule of law
has been violated, the Court will not
after two cOncurring verdicts grant a
new trial if the questions to be tried
depend wholly on matters of fact, al
though the verdict is, in the Judgment
of the court against the weight of the
evidence. Joyce VS. Charleston Ice
Manufacturing Co., 80 Fed 371-5. Clark
VS. Barney Dumping Co., 109 Fed. 235.
Il may say in this case as was said
ny the Court in the case of Frost VS.
Brown, Bay. 139, where as in the case
at bar two trials were had resulting
practically in the same verdict,-that
although L wouldsnever surrender a
plain and certain rule of law to the
caprice of a jury or any number of
jUries, yet in a case where the law is
complicated with facts so that the con-
structiOn and application of it must
depend on the findings of facts, two
cOncurring Verdicts even against the
opinion of the judges, ought to be con-
elusive. Joyce VS.. Charleston Manu-
featuring Co., supra.
Il have made an examination of the
very lengthy assignment of errors of
law alleged to have occurred at the
trial of the case, and have read with
much care, the elaborate brief of the
counsel for complainant in addition to
the brief of defendants cOunsel,-I do
not however deem it necessary to go in
TO an exhaustive discussion of those al
legged errors. No reason has been pre-
Sented to me which l think is sufH-
GENTLY forceful to lead me to change
my views as indicated by my rulings
at the trial; and while some slight er-
Tors may have and doubtless did creep
into the record, yet l find none which
in my judgment We're material or so
prejudicial to the interests of the COM
plainant as to have materially influence
eG the verdict of the jury.
"The motion for new trial is there
fore denied.
"ESTEE,
Judge"