The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1906-09-27
Cotton
Brothers
Must Pay
VERDICT OF $4,000 IN FAVOR OF
THE TERRITORY is AGAIN
SUSTAINED.

The Supreme Court gave another
Cotton Bros. decision this morning,
sustaining the verdict of $4,000 secur-
ed by the Territory against the COM
pany for the loss of the dredger used
at Pearl Harbor, The opinion of the
court is by Chief Justice Frear, who
heard the case with Wilder and De
Bolt The argument was had and
decision arrived at before Justice
Wilder left on his vacation, but it had
not been written. 1t was signed on
his return and handed down this
morning. The decision is believed
to end the litigation here, but an APP
peal to the Supreme Court of the Unit
ed States is expected
The syllabus sets forth the PROPOSE
tions ruled upon as follows
"A verdict for $4,000 for the loss of
dredger through the alleged negli-
gence of the defendants, who hired her
from the plaintiff in the harbor of
Honolulu and after using her there
took her. to the bar at the entrance to
Pearl Harbor, where she was lost, is
"An opinion expressed by the trial
judge that the verdict is against the
evidence-in this case on the question
of negligence-is not conclusive. In
this instance it was expressed in a
ruling that was set aside as beyond
his jurisdiction, but, assuming that
some weight might nevertheless pro-
perly be given to it, it cannot control
in view of the inadequacy of the rea-
sons given for it by the trial judge
and the clear adequacy of the evidence
to support the verdict.
"The plaintiff would not be estopped
by the mere knowledge of it's assistant
superintendent of public works that
the defendants were to take or had
| taken the dredger to Pearl Harbor. if
that were negligence, and his failure
| to object-it not appearing what au-
thority he had in the matter or what
knowledge he had as to the rights of
the defendants, and the latter, who
had dealt with the superintendent of
public works, having full knowledge
of the extent of their rights.
evidence tending to show that the
defendants kept the dredger without
proper protection where she was liable
| to be sWamped in rough weather and
| that she was swamped in such wea-
Their, is sufficient to support a verdict
that she was lost through the negli-
gence of the defendants, even if there
was no evidence of any special negli-
gence during the last two hours before
she sank and even if it was not neg
| ligence to place and use the dredgeI
there in calm weather and there was
no available means of taking her tc
a place of safety after rough weather
arose, the defendants having failed tc
provide such means.
| "A nautical expert may properly be
asked whether it would be safe OF
prudent to moor a dredger as des-
cribed. 1t is not necessary to ask in
! seated whether such mooring would
be such an act as an ordinarily careful
and prudent man would exercise as to
| his own property under similar cir
cumstances.
Evidence that the value of the
dredger was $4,000 only eight months
| before she was lost and that during
| that time she had been used only in
a quiet harbor and that she was then
considered in sufficiently good order
to be taken without further repairs
| for extensive use on a rough bar
would be sufficient to support a finding
that she was worth $4,000 at the time
she was lost-but there was direct evil
dence tending to show that she was
worth that then"
Attorney General +. c. Peters APP
peared for the Territory and S. H.
Derby for the defendants.