The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1902-01-24
THE JURY
DID WRONG
Mr.. DunneFiIes His
Pearl iiarbOr
Brief.
(From Wednesdays daily)

tfTOm w euneSuayS uallSD
The brief of United States Attorney
Dunno in support of the motion for a
new trial in the case of United States
VS.. Honolulu Plantation Co., was filed
yesterday. Mr.. DUNES principal con-
tention Is as to the alleged excessive
and extravagant valuation placed by
the jury upon the condemned land. In
aependently of the conjectures of par
tisan experts" says plaintiff, "it Is
plain that the land In question is re-
Auced in value by being subjected to
the burden of the railroad easement.
There is nothing homogeneous about
this land; 1t varies in availability, pro-
Auctiveness and depth of soil. Moth
ing Is more vital to the success OF a
plantation than water. but this land
has no natural water supply, and it's
only artificial water supply Is restrict
ed to just one small brackish artesian
well. The place is barren Of improve
nents. The land Is undeveloped and
INFESTED. 1t has never been cropped its
capabilities are pure matters of guess
and speculation. In brief this piece of
land never has been put to any useful
purpose, has been a source of expense
for rent and taxes and has never pro-
duced one dollar of income"
The character of plaintiffs witnesses
and the interest of defendants wit
lesses Is set out, together with the
lump values placed upon the land by
the latter. The testimony of Low as
TO value is referred to as Lows gym
nastics' and his four different valua-
lions are also set out "These stories
cannot all be true" says Mr.. Dunno.
land 1t is interesting to inquire what
Is to be thought Of the case which IS
compelled to descend to such shifts and
disingenuous shuffling as this"
Mr.. Dunno figures from the $4,000
paid for the lease OF 1900 acres for forty
years that the lease of the land in
question is worth $3.50 an acre. But
even this is offset, he claims. by the
following heavy discount.
l. The 56l acres never had an an
suai use.
2. They never had yearly value.
;. They had never been cleared,
plowed. sowed or cropped.
1. Nearly ne-half Is useless and un-
fit for cultivation.
s. They never produced any income
whatever.
g. The whole piece Is raw land that
never has been cultivated. that never
raised a crop. and whose capabilities
are purely speculative.
7. Shallow soil. rocky patches.
narshy spots.
g. No water supply beyond one small
brackish artesian well.
.. Railroad easement.
10. No improvements. Neither the
mill nor the pumping plant Is on this
land. They are both independent, and
built prior to the clearing and plough
ing. They would have been built any
way. whether the defendant got this
land or not. as they were both indis-
pensable to the other 5000 acres of the
plantation.
IL. Until recently this land was a
waste, overrun by cattle. 1t was not
subjected to any useful purpose, wheth-
er for transportation, storage, repair
shop, or other purposes or as a living
ground for employees.
II. These sol acres never had any
influence, whether for good or bad,
upon the remainder of the plantation.
They neither produced nor contributed
anything to the annual use of the
plantation.
10. Even on the assumption that
these acres are as good as the rest, the
Dowsett lease transaction shows that
$3.50 per acre is fair valuation upon
defendants own conduct and judgment
In the purchase OF that lease.
Mr.. Dunno refers also to the refusal
of the request to allow Juror Kohn to
view the land. but ignores the charge
of relationship to defendants attorney.
He argues also that the finding as to
Improvement was wrong, and says that
cultivation cannot be counted an i'm
provement, and that the general law as
to fixtures would compel the surrender
10 the Bishop Estate of all improve
ments upon the expiration of the lease.
Furthermore, there was no evidence
upon which the jury could base its fig
ures. ....
Il rely upon the principle that the
compensation should be just" says Mr.,
Dunno. 1t should not be unjust, un-
this case is grossly excessive because
the jury added on Sl5,20S for improve
ments which did not exist or of which
no market value was proved. And
moreover the jury went to eXtravagant
lengths in the amount which it found
for the value of the leasehold."
In conclusion reference is made to che
valuations upon different plantations
made by the managers, and the dis
crepancy in the figures is pointed out.
Mr.. Silliman will probably submit his
reply brief today or tomorrow.
--------~H~---