The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-01-23
VERDICT IS
TOO SMALL
The Reply Brief in
Pearl Harbor
Case.
PLAINTIFF HAD
NO EXPERTS
Attorneys Say Government Could
Have Got Men to Testify
to Sugar Values.

The reply brief by Hatch & Sillin1ar
In the case of United States VS.. Homo
lulu Plantation Co. was filed In Fed
eral court yesterday afternoon.
! The first point discussed by counsel
| is with regard to the amount of the
verdict which plaintiff claims was ex-
cessiye. The brief says: 1.-The verdict
| was probably unsatisfactory to both
parties to this litigation. The defend
ant certainly felt that it should receive
| a much larger sum than the jury
awarded 1t, and believed that the evil
finding of a verdict in the amount
claimed, to-wit, 100000. A fair and
careful consideration of the record and
the evidence of the different witnesses
who were called for plaintiff and de-
PENDANT must lead the mind to the con-
clusion that the defendant was clearly
entitled TO a larger verdict than was
found by the jury"
The brief refers to the fact that the
government called but two witnesses,
Herbert and Archer, neither of whom
were qualified as experts. These were
the only two witnesses called by the
government on the question of value
in a country that is full of persons
having expert knowledge of the value
of the kind of land sought to be con-
demned. Auctioneers brokers, real es-
tate men, promoters, government land
agents, members of tax appeal courts
and any others could have been found
qualified to express an opinion upon
the value of that leasehold interest"
els 1t not significant that
only two witnesses having no special
qualifications were called by the gov
eminent on the question of value?
Contrast these two witnesses with the
witnesses called by the defendant, and
the qualifications possessed by the one
with the qualifications possessed by the
other"
The charge of Jumping values is an
swered by the assertion that the court
had ruled that the single question for
the jury was the market value of the
leasehold interest, which necessitated
total valuation. 1t is agreed also that
1.-The testimony was not speculative.
but was as certain and reliable as could
be produced on an inquiry of this char
acter.''
AS to the question of improvements,
the defendant argues that the court
had charged the jury that they must
find the value of the leasehold interests
and Of the improvements separate and
apart. one from the other"
This instruction was given at the re-
quest of counsel for plaintiff: "It is fur
Their asserted that the evidence of Mr.. |
Low giving 5000 as the value of i'm |
provements was uncontradicted by wit |
nesses.
As to the failure to allow Juror Kohn !
to view the premises counsel contends !
that this point was waived by failure
of plaintiff to insist that it should be
done, and that the only request was
made by defendant, and when the court
overruled 1t neither party took excep-
lions.
A denial Is made of relationship be-
tween counsel and juror, and it is de-
MED also that the so-called newly dis
covered evidence, is new or material.
The brief closes with suggestion that
granting a new trial in this case would I
set a mischievous precedent which the
facts alleged by plaintiff did not justi-
~.