The Hawaiian gazette., 1900-11-02
(rrom Wednesdays Dailyj

Three OF the Chinatown insura 7ce
were decided yesterday by the Supreme
Court
In the case of the Yee wo Chan Com
pany against the Transatlantic Fire In
surance Company in which judgment
was given for the plaintiffs by Judge
Silliman some months ago for $4,000. the
Supreme Court affirms the decision and
overrules the exceptlonsNof the defend
ants.
In Yee Wo Chan against the Masde'
burg Fire Insurance Company in which
the defendants were given judgmen, by
Judge Silliman the decision Is likewise
affirmed.
The third case, the Hawaii Land
Company against the Lion Fire 1nsur-
ance Company, was submitted on an
agreed statement OF facts and It Is de-
cidcd for the defendants in the same
opinion and on the same grounds as the
Magdeburg case.
These three cases arose out of the
burning OF Chinatown on January Goth
last and are representative OF a large
number OF others. Chinatown was in
a very insanitary condition at the time
of the breaking out OF the plague and
the district was placed In quarantine
by the Board of Health. Early in jan
uary the Board adopted fire as mans
of disinfection and thereafter from time
to time until the 10th of that month
burned a number OF buildings. On the
10th of January a resolution was passed
by the Board declaring that portion
of the district farthcst inland waa in
an insanitary condition and infected by
plague, and that the infection could not
be removed by any means but fire. All
the buildings within that portion Of the
block were ordered destroyed.
The fire accidentally spread to 'he
Kaumakapli church and thence
through nearly the whole OF Chinatown
destroying the stores owned by the
plaintiffs which were several blocks
from the spot where the fire originated.
There was only moderate breeze
blowing at the time of the fire and no
cause INTERVIEWED between the setting of
the fire by order of the Board OF Health
and the burning of the property owned
by the plaintiffs
WORDING OF POLICIES.
The difference In the cases and their
outcome lies In the wording Of the
policies. In the case of the
Yee Wo Chan Company against
the Transatlantic Company which was
decided for the plaintiffs the policies
excepted among other things loss re-
sulting from civil commotion and Il Ia
on this ground that the insurance com
rafp IN tina nnlNV pl1l ~
Ing that there was n civil commotion
In Honolulu as n result OF the bubonic
plague epidemic. In this case the court
holds:
THAT phrase civil commotlon is no
doubt of broad meaning, but 1t caunot
be stretched to cover the condition pre-
valling In this city during the period
preceding the fire in question. A civil
commotion requires the wild and irreg-
ular action OF many persons assembled
together. 1t Is true that in this case |
the business OF the courts and of the |
community was more or less interrupt !
cd, but that Is not sufficient TO make |
4 civil commotion. There was nothing |
of wild, tumultuous. violent. turou-
lent or scditious nature which the !
phrase Is generally understood 10 imply |
and which II was intended TO Imply IN |
this policy as shown by the words With
which II is associated. The interruption
to business was orderly, deliberate and
for peaceful and laudable purposes,
The plague itself was not n civil COM
motion. There was, 1t Is true, consider
able excitement after the fire depart
ment lost control of the fire, for SnY-
sral thousand people had to leave their
homes in haste in order to escape the
flames and had to be safely conducted
elsewhere and not allowed TO scatter
In the uninfected portions OF the city,
but II there was civil commotion tEsn
1t did not cause the fire; the fire caused
it,"
VI is held that THE circumstances
set forth in the opinion did not show
that the loss was caused by civil COM
motion so as to exempt the Insurers
under the clause in the policy that thcy
should not be liable for loss or damage
caused by civil commoton." and tuGg-
ment is given for the plaintiffs. q
BY CIVIL AUTHORITY.
Quite a different state Of facts exists
In the other two cases. the Hawaii '
Land Company vs.. the Lion Insurance :
Company and Yee Wo Chan against the
Insurance Company In
the policies sued upon there was a
clause which expressly exempted the
from liability for loss caus-
ed directly or Indirectly by Invasion, /,
riot, eivll war or oommo-
tion. or military or usurped power. or /,
by order OF any olvil authority" II
was upon this last clause In the policy !,
that the defendants relied and tAis
point settled the case In their favor.
The language Of the policy 10 AnaIys-
ed at great length by the opinion the ,
conclusion being aTTiyed at that the Z