The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1896-01-17

was afterwards recovered at less ex-
psrse.s
This expression cI the isw Was cited
/ arp-oViagfy hy The supreme Court og the
/ United States IN Srs3ns Y. The Mary
hand Insurance Gu. = PsgerS So. Ard has
/ beer followed. we believe. il She Admir-
/ sl- Courts without question, See Stow
/ Y. Urson IrS. CO. rs Mass. 50. Wallace
Y. Thames < Ms-sey ms, Co - Fed Rep.
IS. Orient IrSs CO. :. Adams. tSS I. :. s..
| We 90 nor consider that the fact thar
the vessel IN this case was recovered and
repaired i conclusive nor Is X the ~osss
evidence that Il WAS practicable 70 ne
cover and repair IT, Orient IaS, Y. Adams.
Il. Tg On the other hSnd the bare fact
that the r-aSer tho2sht thar his vessel
was in extreme peril and thar rhe prob
able cost % her recovery and repairs
would exceed half her value under the
Sun policy. would no, justify the aoal-
tours1t- TIE evidence shows that no
adequate means were taken 70 ascertain
the probabilities The wSinosnSlo had
been driven BY the surf over the sand spit
and lay o. her bfiss and her position
seemed critical bur no Sour6inSS
we're taken by the Master Of the
water alongside OF her, no care
fal examination q the nsiShboring
channels and reefs. ard 10 plan uratursd
by him as 20 how she could be recovered
ard brought into deep water. ana no de-
s-niosd EFFORT made FOR her recovery.
he called 70 his counsel Capt S1nyths Of
ths ~WaisIsaIe.~ and his estimate thst
the vsSSel should be abandoned Is the
Capt Suyths. however. says that Ne
stood On the shore some hundreds OF
yards distant from the --vai-ra-slo.'
that 10 souadirgs had been given him by
Capt Du6oir CT taken by him. and that
II he lad been told that there was eight
and hzlf feet OF water under her stern
IL would have made s difference IN his
Judgment that the vessel should be
abanGcrsG- He made no estimate OF the
pcubahIs cost Of repairs. As above stated
n few days the vessel was rsshtsd by
contractors Of the Insurers, her hole
patched up, pulled over the reef into deep
water and brought 70 EoroI1Iu and re-
paired for less than half her agreed value
This. though not the best evidence" Is
evidence that the aha1io-nsnt was has
Thy and iuprovi6sutiy decided upon
This : not the case where changed cir
czn<rances after an abandonment made
II good faith. make II p-acticabIs 10 re-
cover and repair the vessel for a less sum
than would make the insurers liable
Here the Circumstances, 20 far as we can
judge. had not changed
From a careful review OF the very
voluuinOus evidence taken. we are OF
opinion that the abandonment was not
justified and that 10 sufficient exanina-
ton was made by the master upon which
70 base his Judgment and no energetic
means taken TO recover his vessel The !
Insured were hound 70 do al II their pow
sr to save the Insurers from Suy pay
uent under their policies The insurers 1
dfd. in recovering the vessel. what the
Insured should have done. and were jus
tiled In refusing TO accept the abandon !
uenr. and as they were not liable (Ths
sun Company for loss not exceeding \
half Of the agreed value ard the Alliance 4
Company for 4 loss not exceeding the 4
value. they are entitled TO recover OF the
Insured the amount ~ the expenses in
Cured by them In saving and repairing /
the vessel The principles sustaining
this right Of action are fully discussed
and settled IN Commonwealth ms Co. '.
Chase. 20 Pick IE
The decree appealed from Is reversed
and Judgusnt ordered for the Insurers
the amount Of which Is referred 70 the
Clerk Of the Court for computation and
report The EbeIs Of the frSUd against
the Insurance Companies are disutsssd-
2 N Hatch for the Insured; L A
ThErstou and Paul Neunaun for the
Insurers.
Honolulu Jan 2. 1856