The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1904-06-28
H|LO JURY
STILL OUT
No Agreement At a
Late Hour Last
Night.
tFrom saturdays Advertiser)


T. A. Magoon moved for a directed
verdict for the plaintiff, c. a. Brown.
on the grounds that he had proved a
clear title to the property and that the
defendants had failed to prove any title.
The motion was denied.
S. NJ. Ballou for the defendants, j. ID.
Spreckels and others. moved for di-
rected verdict for the defendants on
the same grounds as those presented
TO support the motion for a non-suit.
The motion was denied.
Mr., Magoon next moved that the
question of adverse possession be with
drawn from the jury.
Judge Gear asked If he wanted addt-
tional instructions, adding, Il will in
struct the jury at the end of the case
The motion was withdrawn.
w. a. Kinney began addressing the
Jury for the defendants at 2:2S and
spoke for fifty minutes. AT the outset
he admitted that Brown was entitled
to whatever was given him in the deed
from Mrs. Pitman. His title rested on
the Bates grant from Kamehameha Ill,
which, after description of three sides,
stated "and also the sea beach in front
of the same to low water mark Did
that mean all of the territory between
high and low water mark now, or the
sea beach as it existed in 1853?
Defendants contended that all of the
accretions in evidence went to the Ha-
waiian Government under a ruling of
the court. Mr.. Magoon had said that
everybody used that beach, and 1t had
turned out that he was another Daniel
come to judgment" for the Judge had
ruled that it was Government prop
erty.
If the ruling of the court held good
of course it did not help Spreckels, be-
cause adverse possession could not run
against the Government, while c. a.
Brown would still have his sea beach.
One in possession was not obliged to
surrender to anyone but the owner.
Plaintiff claimed 100 feet of red soil
washed from the mountains and separ-
ated from the beach by a bank five
feet high.
"They had to yank that sea beach
away up there and plant it with pohue-
hue and sea sand" the attorney said.
The highest reach of a tidal wave how
ever, did not constitute sea beach.
Concluding, Mr.. Kinney said they pro-
tested against the whole proceeding
-'from the morning when Loebenstein
went in with his shotgun to the time
when Mary Ailau was brought to the
front for sympathy. The entire case or
the plaintiff was cheap and tawdry.'
w. l.. Stanley made the closing ad-
dress for the plaintiff, occupying about
the same length of time as Mr.. Kinney
had done. Replying to certain remarks
he said the plaintiff was not going to
California to abuse Spreckels No dang
ages were claimed as might properly be
done for unlawful occupation There
was nothing ignoble about the plain
tiff's case unless it was ignoble for a
plain citizen like Mr.. Brown to oppose
the claims of Mr.. Spreckels.
.'They themselves jumped the land
counsel said-''jumped it to keep the
heirs of Thomas Spencer out They
sat right there, hoping to hold the land
until the statute of limitations ran out.
when we bring them into court,
Mr.. Stanley said, they say this is their
protest against our methods" Against
such an attitude he placed the facts of
the contest extending from 1899 to 1904
including four jury trials before the
present one, with the attendance of
parties and witnesses at Hilo, Kailua
and Honolulu.
Mr.. Brown paid $4,000 cash to Mrs.
Pitman, who was not in position 10
fight the power of Spreckels. Defend
ants claimed virtue because they came
into court and asked verdict of jury,
when the truth was they came into
court because they had to.
Counsel opposite professed to have
claimed from first TO last that the prop
erty was Government land. up to the
time the Judge said to them You have
not proved adverse possession did you
hear one word about the Government"
the speaker asked Their whole cry
was that the land passed from Pitman
to Spencer, until the court said posses
sion against Spencer had not been
proved. Mr.. Kinney's whole claim was
that this land was conveyed by Pit
man 10 Spencer, but by mistake was
left out of the deed.
Proceeding, Mr. Stanley reviewed the
evidence, The grant IN question was by
metes and bounds on three sides, then
by the sea beach In front of the same"
II the contention OF the defendants was
right Il would not be ''lhe sea beach
In front OF the same but "the sea
beach in front OF piece of land that
Was pol grantee
Mr Stanley explained that slrlp OF
the land was lHkon nut for ID road and
Afsurd aHalnet lhr contention tbat th8
uispuuA property Nue u1l SEA beach
iuaHs Ntar lusIupifl iht iuy at Rr
hNul 4 uNinHk Az Ma ono pNal nI
laHl lH lhs taff D. 4HHiel d ANAl.l
lnf lhs r.alniH
Az HE.n.k ihg lurf HHi iuin all
fHf I#EI4a.H HH IH. HIH. HII.HErGL t.I.
afn lHIIf WIHaiH HIF q HAlHH
~ halli fI H# IHs Wfa.H H q
i9Hs HW fh IHIf I
f# ~ lI HHH IH NJ H
tIa#H4 W ~ N#H HII'H N.
~ HlII
Af1A#8 lHH HI
l