Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-01-26


the Honolulu Plantation Company:
This action was brought.by the Unit
ed States to condemn the lcasehold
interest of the defendant, the Homo
lulu Plantation Company, in j61.2
acres of the lands desired by tho
United States for a Naval Station,
A jury rendered a verdict therein on
the 18th day of January, 1902, allow
ing SS9,792 as the value Of the lease
hold in the 561.2 acres of land and
the sum of sl5,2OS as the value of the
improvements on the said land, max.
ing a total Of 100000 for the whole
interest of the defendant in the said
lands.
when the verdict was rendered,
both counsel for plaintiff and defend.
ant demanded a new trial, the plain
tin following up such a demand by the
proper notice of intention to move for
new trial on a day certain. On that
day the matter was submitted on
briefs to be filed.
The principal question involved in
the notion in the judgment of tho
Court, is as to the verdict being eX'
cessive in amount, and not borne out
by the weight of the evidence.
II is presumed the jury intended to
be controlled in fixing the value Of
the leasehold interest in the lands by
a preponderance OF the evidence, but
in the judgment Of the Court they fall
ed to do this.
| will review few Of the estimates
placed upon this leasehold interest.
Mr.. Archer. the assessor Of the Terri
tory, and apparently a disinterested
witness, placed valuation of $25 per
acre on the leasehold interest in this
land. Mr. Herbert, to all intents, an
unwilling witness for the plaintiff.
placed a valuation of from s75 to 800
per acre on the 3i2 acres shown by
the evidence to have been cleared.
and 1926 per acre on the remaining 2l9
acres, making an average Of from s5i
to 81 per acre on the whole 56l2
acres.
The testimony of Mr.. Low. the man
ager OF the defendant, and who repre-
scented the defendant throughout the
trial. is glaringly and curiously incon'
sistent. He gave Ave different estl
mates as to the value of this lease
hold four of them widely varying. In
his sworn answer filed herein. he al
leges that the defendant would be
damaged by the taking of this land In
the sum of 100000 less s55,O55 fol
alleged improvements on said land
placing the valuation of the leaseholt
in the lands alone at $l44,O45.
On the trial the same witness test
fed that the whole interest of the de
PENDANT in the leasehold in thest
lands was worth 100000.
He further testified that the valua
ton of the land was $500 per acre
leases, but with the leases it would
t be worth see per acre. or abou
what the average of the estimates o
Archer and Herbert would be in thit
case.
It further appears that in accord
anCe with the laws of the Territory
Mr.. Low, acting as the manager o
the defendant. made a return to thu
assessor for the year 1900, in whicl
he swore to the value of the leaseholt
interests of the defendant in 472
q acres of land. including the 56l.2 il
controversy. at $4,000, making an av
erage value of about SIS per acre
while for the year 1901, he returned
the same leasehOld interests covering
u trifle more acreage, i774 acres an,
including the same 56l.2 acres in cor
troversy at $4,000, or an average u
n 81 per acre.
The evidence showed that a portio
of these leased lands other than tn
5Gl.2 acres are now and for two year
last past have been cultivated to can
g and apparently are quite as valuabl
= as the land in controversy.
y II is further in evidence that thcs
/ tax returns are required by law to b
@ and were sworn to by Mr.. Low, repr,
senting the defendant, and It Is fu
Their required by said law that thes
returns shall represent the aCtui
cash value of the property. 1t is pr,
sumed that the defendant through 1t
Manager, MIR. Low, was swearing I
the truth when these returns wer
made, And, ii so, how Is this test
mOny on the trial to be reconcile
herewith
The compensation for this lcas
hold must be just, and 1t must be a,
mitted that defendant should not hav
| a judgment for more than its prope
ty is worth, and the value of the pro
erty to be taken must be fixed by tn
rational and usual means. This valu
should have been obtained by the jur
ID from fair and reasonable analysis {
/ all the evidence given by the wi
s. ncsses on tho trial.
W So the Court is largely controlled I
)" deciding this motion by the admitte