Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-04-05

this question Mr.. Heath objected, first
10 answer such IA question, and record
TO the admission in evidence of the
opinion Of any man as to the value Of
the plant in its entirety, including the
| franchise. He first cross examined Mr.
West as to his qualifications to ans
that he had read the opinion in the
Watcrville case and that he proposed
to put Il valuation upon the plant con-
| sidcrng its lawful earning capacity.
| Mr.. Heath then argued his second OBJ
any other man was cOmpetant to ans
wer such a question, involving, as it
does an opinion on u mixed question of
| law and fact. 1T is true that similar
| questions were admitted in the cases
| at Dover, Gardiner and Waterville"
said Mr.. Heath with only feeble oh
| iectiOnS made, but that cannot affect
| the issue here. The rule of law is
plain that opinion evidence cannot be
admitted under these circumstances
| The expert witness must not base his
opinion upon any undiscloscd facts,
as this witness admits he is doing. The
point OF view of the owner or investor
who seek to base their valuation upon
| the lawful income of the property 1t
| is the rule that even given the case
| where every fact is admitted. it is in
cOmpctant for any witness to tell the
court the proper sum to represent tie
| application of the rules of law to that
| case" Mr.. Heath spoke for an hour
quoting an opinion Of Judge White
| house. and also the opinion of the high
er courts in Massachusetts Illinois and
other states as to the admission Of
such evidence. He declared that it
vas not only Mr.. Vests opinion which
he objected to but the opinion of any
witness seeking to give the court a re-
suit which only itself can reach after
all testimony is in.
In defense of the admssibiity of this
questions, Mr.. Baker urged that the
question was based wholly aOn the as
sumption that present rates are reason
able. "There is no element of law in
the question:, said Mr.. Baker. What is
asked for is simply an opinion on as
sumed facts. Similar questions were
admitted at Dover, Gardiner and
Waterville and we can hardly claim to
be wiser than the learned men on those
tribunals. This tribunal is not above
receiving assistance from a man of
such wide experience as Mr.. West. If
this were an unimportant case the ad-
mission of the evidence of an owner
would not be questioned. Such evidence
should be admitted and given such
weight as the court sees fit. No evil
dence should be excluded which will
throw even small light upon the value
of this great property. We shall be
cutting loose from all precedent if this |
testimony is excluded
MIR. Heath read the records of the
hearings at Gardiner, Dover and Wa
terville, showing that in the two first |
named cases the corresponding ques-
ton was not even objected to and so |
was not ruled upon: while in the Wa
terville case an objection was made but !
was not followed by discussion and the |
question was ruled in. He urged that |
such evidence in the case of a quasi |
public corporation is different than
when only the property of private par
ties is involved.
At 2. NJ. the hearing was adjourned
to 1920 this morning. The hearing will
begin later than usual on account Of
impanelling the grand jury.