The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-03-08
LONG TRIAL
NOW ENDING
Judge De Bolt Leans to
Plaintiff
Argument.

Today, the fourth day of the fourth
week of trial, the Hi1o waterfront case
&C. A Brown against John D. SprecK-
els and others-will go to the jury for
a verdict. W. A. Kinney took about
four hours yesterday afternoon in clos
ing for defendants J. A. Magoon will
begin the address for plaintiff at 9
clock this morning
Judge De Bolt dispensed with noon
recess to hear a motion by plaintiff for
a directed verdict in his favor His
denial of the motion was thus reported
by an afternoon paper:
Judge De Bolt said that he was in
clined in favor of the plaintiff, but dIo
not want to grant the motion for a di-
rected verdict, as there was still some
doubt in his mind. He might say, how
ever, that should the jury render a
verdict for the defendant and should
motion to set aside that verdict be
made, he might do 500
As such motions are argued and de-
cided in the absence of the jury. an Adj
vertiser reporter asked Judge De Bolt
after adjournment if he desired to say
anything on the matter.
In reply he stated that he did make
such an intimation Of his view of the
case to the attorneys. He did it en-
tirely to save their time in arguing on
the motion, bat was not aware that
any member of the press was present
when he made the remarks.
ARGUMENT FOR DEFENDANTS.
Mr. Kinney referred to it as a spec
uIator's'' case. Plaintiff must have his
pound of flesh, but the blood must go
with it.
Spreckels took the beach land from
neither rich man nor poor man,
and he held it without opposition for
nine years.
If anyone went nosing through those
records downstairs he would find many
a property in Hawaii today with weak
spots in its title. There was a popu-
lar impression that the law instigated
litigation, but if the law was to make
known every flaw of title in the rec
ords it would set pandemonium loose
in this land.
If Captain Tom Spencer held that
land against all corners from 1861 to
1881, then c. A. Brown had no claim
on it at this day. He had only a deed
from Martha Pitman made in 1889,
after Ben Pitman's lips had been seal
ed for 81 years. For 80 years that
property had been held adversely by
Spencer and his successors.
Mr.. Kinney argued, on the point of
exclusive possession. that the fact of
many people using the piece of beach
as both thoroughfare and landing had
no significance. because it was gate
way of the port on which the gov
ernment always reserved an easement.
Title on such a ground might as well
be disputed in the case of an owner
O. faro patches along whose borders
other people habitually made use of
paths.
Spencer was not authorized to throw
people off. He was not obliged to be
a skinf1int or a hog. The land was
used the same way when the Pitmans
held it. Though no Sunday school
man. Spencer would open his ware
house for Sunday school picnics. He
drove Chinese off, perhaps because of
his Irish prejudice. when they were
removing sand. but he personally SUI
perintended the taking of sand for
Onomea plantation. 1t was before the
days when owners were mean enough
to charge for sand. The use by others
was but permissive.
Ben Pitman nor anyone after him
ever laid claim to this land. Hamlet
was entirely left out OF the play. The
picking of a cocoanut or the hauling
of canoe on the place by any Pit
man had not been shown.
Mr.. Kinney spoke of Waialua before
the lands were fenced, saying the road
way was about a quarter of mile
wide. Yet after fencing, the govern |
ment claimed only a reasonable width |
as road reservation.
On the point of continuous possess |
sion, he said this necessary element |
did not require Spencer to haul canoe |
or to pile wood there every day.
COURT ITEMS.