The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1911-06-15
.ODO INTRICACIES
Of LAW CROP UP


United States Judge Clemens yes
terday afternoon ruled Amy Thompson
out as a party defendant in the Wal
-irih condemnation suit, on the ground
that her claim was barred by the Ter
tritorial and Federal decisions upon the
Noholoa will. An interesting contest
forthwith took place with regard to
the position of the barred claimants
attorney, j. Alfred Magoon as to
further proceedings. Mr.. Olson, of
counsel for David Noholoa, contended
that Mr. Magoon should be put to his
proof the first thing, so as to shut
him out once and Eor all in the case
through the courts ruling in presence
of the jury.
Mr. Magoon objected to being COM
PEELED to open the case, holding that
the order of challenges in empaneling
the jury should be followed This was
Holmes, Stanley & Olson for Noholoa
first, Magoon for Amy Thompson Sec
ond, Castle & Wilmington for w. r.
| Castle third, and District Attorney
lBreckons for the United States fourth.
An interlockng point was raised in
the argument relative to the correct
ness of the order of challenges, which
beautifully illustrated the complex
ties of law. The order of challenges
is governed by the question of the bur
den of proof, but in this case the bur
den of proof straddles the fence.
Upon the government lies the burden
of proof as to the necessity of the
condemnation, while upon the claim
ants the burden lies of proving the
values claimed.
Mr.. Breckuns took a hand in this
fight, saying that if such was so he
should have had the prior right of
challenge.
To a lay observer it looked for a
minute as if the jury panel were liable
to be thrown out, but Judge Clemens
cut the Gordian knot by ordering Mr.
Magoon to go ahead.
Mr.. Magoon called G. K. Hopkins
= Territorial court interpreter, and
presenting to his notice a printed rec
ord of the Noholoa litigation, asked
him if the translation by himself
therein contained was correct in
! depreciation of the will.
Mr.. Olson promptly objected to the
question as immaterial, ETC., in that /
/, dealt with facts that were res Indicate
both through the will case and sub
sequent action to quiet title.
Mr.. Magoon proceeded to argue t.
the court, but the court ordered hin
to state to the jury precisely what h
desired to prove by that witness. TIL
attorney complied, the court disal
lowed the question, and Mr.. Magool
was eliminated from the trial
Judge Clemens reserved his rulini
q en- the position of Mr.. Castle unit
this morning. The point is. whethe
+, the lessor or the lessee, the latter be
o ing Castle, in a lease to be put in evt
f Idence shall take damages or comper
, Isation, the lease allowing the lesso
. such if part of the land be condemne
: for roads, streets, highways, or Other
i, wise" It's terms approximate to tn
). law in such cases, the idea being tina
new road would be betterment Ell
+ HANGING the value of the property o
+ the lessee. On behalf of Castle it wa
v cohtended that cor otherwise" was re
). stricted to public improvements in tn
$ category of, roads, etc, and did no
/ apply where Notifications were con
e oerned, hence the lessee sustained
' damages to the land in this case TO
I which he should be compensated. Fo
D Noholoa, on the contrary, it was urge
? that roads, streets, highways" wa
: an exhaustive description, therefor
cor otherwise" meant any other publi
? purpose, such as Notifications in tn
case at bar,
: Should the ruling favor Noholoa /
: will not put Castle out of court, a
= part of his claim is for Improvement
: he has put upon the land The leas,
r has about nine years to run.