The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-01-27
WILL GET A
NEW TRIAL
Pearl Harbor Case
Must Be Tried
Again.
ESTEE ORDERS
CUT IN VERDICT
Unless Honolulu Plantation Ac-
cepts $4,000 Less Will
Have New Trial.

Unless the Honolulu Plantation CO
agrees to accept a cut of $4,000 from
the verdict awarded it by a jury in the
/ Pearl Harbor case, Judge Estee will
grant a new trial. The ruling was
made in federal court Saturday and the
defendant is given three days to agree
to the terms proposed by the court. 1t
is not thought probable, however, that
the Honolulu Plantation will accept a
reduction to ZOO for their leasehold
interest in the Bishop Estate lands.
| The court in granting the conditional
new trial reviewed at some length the
evidence offered, stating that the testi-
| mony of Archer and Herbert was dis
interested, while that of the defendant
Low sis glaringly and curiously incon-
| sistent.''
| The court in his ruling stated that
| he was guided largely by the testimony
| Of Low and by the tax returns and the
| price paid for the lease from the Dow
sett estate. He referred to the testi-
mony of the plantation managers as
much exaggerated, and far in excess
of any real value shown.
In concluding the court said:
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.
1'TD view of all the a
new trial might possibly be properly !
had. AS has been before stated, upon
the rendition of the verdict in the case, |
a demand for a new trial was made by |
both counsel for plaintiff and defend |
ant, neither of whom was satisfied with |
the verdict of the jury.
However, upon a careful consdera-
ton of the reasons advanced both for
and against the motion made by the
plaintiff, and after lengthy examina
ton of the whole of the record includ-
ing the testimony offered on behalf of
both parties and of the able briefs filed
herein, I am of the opinion that the |
amount of the verdict rendered by the
jury is excessive and not in conformity
with the weight of the evidence. This
court would not interpoSe it's judgment
in opposition to that of the jury by ex-
pressing an amount which in its opin-
ion would be a just compensation for
the property OF the defendant. But if
the jury had returned a verdict in any
amount not to exceed $4,000, this court
would have allowed a judgment to have
been entered in accordance Herewith.
TT is therefore the judgment of the
court that if the defendant RENTS from
the verdict rendered in its favor $50, 900,
leaving the sum of $4,000 as full COM
pensation for it's damages of every
kind and character in this case, then ,
the motion made by the plaintiff for a
new trial will be denied. This election
must be made by the defendant within s
three days from the date hereof by the t
filing with the clerk of this court a {
" ritten consent to the modification of !
the verdict in that particular, and the :
entry of a judgment in accordance
Herewith. Otherwise a new trial will Z
be granted
THE BEER FIGHT.
The evidence in the case of Macfar- "
ane & Co. ct al. VS.. w. H. Wright
treasurer. was concluded in Federal +
court Saturday afternoon. Briefs will {
De submitted and there will be no oral n
arguments. The case came near fall Il
ing through at the opening of court n
because of the inability of plaintiffs to :
show individual damage OF more / =
han $4,000. The court refused to allow -
he questions as submitted, but finally o
larry Dee managed to answer a Ques- a
ion without protest, and stated that c.
lis loss for the past six months be- s.
ause of these cheap licenses was about y
1000. The profits in beer are enormous p,
ccording to the testimony adduced
Turing the trial.
What do you receive on each barrel
f beer?" asked Judge SiIliman.
'F'orty-five dollars" replied Dee.
What does each barrel cost you?" y
1T costs $3.50 on the mainland, or ~
1850 here at Honolulu ~
Dee admitted that he sold his beer Nc
or twelve and a half cents a glass, is
'hile Primo beer cost but ten cents. az
t would mean a further loss of nine M
ollars a barrel if he sold as cheap as w
he home brewed beer. he said. de
Mr. Peacock and Mr.. Lishman of ev
lacfarlane & Co. and the remaining da
laintiffs were on the stand during the W;
fternoon and all related the story of to
leir losses since the brewing of Primo 70
GER began. ch
to
TT