The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1900-10-31
THE FIRE CASES DECIDED
SUPREME COURT SETTLES THREE
SUITS.
zee Wo Chan Company Wins one Case
and Loses the Second-Insurance
People Win.

The Supreme Court handed down
three decisions yesterday in the China
town fire insurance suits. one of the
decisions sustained the rulings of the
Circuit court which awarded the Yee
Wo Chan Company damages against
the Transatlantic Fire Insurance Com
pany. The other appeals in the case of
the Hawaiian Land Company against
the Lion Insurance Company and the
Yee Wo Chan against the Magdeburg
Company were decided in favor of the
defendants.
These cases arose out of the burning
of Chinatown on January goth last. At
ter the Board of Health directed that a
portion of Chinatown be destroyed by
fire in order to obliterate the plague,
the portion named was fired on the 10Th.
The stores of the plaintiffs were sew
eral blocks away from the alleged in
fected district but the fire got beyond
control of the fiTemen and soon spread
to the rest of Chinatown and destroyed
the stores of plaintiffs. There was only
a usual breeze blowing at the time and
no other cause interviewed between the
! firing of the infected buildings by order
! of the board and the burning of plain
! tiffs' property.
In the case against the Transatlantic
! Company the defendants refused to pay
! the policy, amounting to So 900 on the
ground that in it's policy it qualified
/ payment for losses in cases of civil
| connection The Supreme Court decided
| that there was no civil commotion in
Honolulu at the time of the fire The
! court holds as follows:
That phrase civil connection is no
doubt of broad meaning, but it cannot
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. Il is true that in this case
the business of the courts and of the
community was more or less interrupt
ed, but that is not sufficient to make
a civil commotion. There was nothing
OF q wild, tumultuous, violent, turbu-
lent or seditious nature which the
phrase is generally understood to imply
and which it was intended to imply in
this policy as shown by the words with
(which it is associated. The interruption
to business was orderly, deliberate and
for peaceful and laudable purposes.
The plague itself was not a civil COM
motion. There was, it is true, consider
able excitement after the fire depart
ment lost control of the fire, for sew
eral thousand people had to leave their
homes in haste to be safely conducted
elsewhere and not allowed to scatter
in the unaffected portions of the city
but if there was a civil commotion then
1T did not cause the fire; the fire caused
it,"
An entirely different condition of af-
fairs presented itself in the other cases
and the defense proved sufficient to
save the companies the amount of the
policies. In these policies there was a
clause which exempted the companies
from liability for loss caused directly
or indirectly by invasion, insurrection
ssf.N
or usupred power, or by order of any
civil authority"
After analysing the language of the
policy the conclusion arrived at is tha'
the words directly or indirectly" apply
to the expression ''by order of the cfvi
authority"
Much space is devoted to the quest ior
whether the order of the Board was the
cause of the loss from a legal stand
point or whether the plague was the
cause. A long line of decisions is quot.
ed on this score.
where loss by fire." the opinion
says lis insured against and loss caus.
ed directly or indirectly by the order
of any civil authority is excepted, tn,
order and not the fire should be regard
ed as the cause within the meaning Of
the contract. But since loss by playa,
is neither insured against nor excepted
the plague cannot be regarded as tn,
cause of the loss of property destroyed
by fire ordered by civil authority
though in consequence of the plague
We may add also that here as in tn,
Virginia case mentioned in the opin
ion) there was not the same pressing
necessity for the destruction of tn,
property either in point of time or as t,
the method of destroying it as Their,
was in the case of Insurance Company
against Boon (cited above.) Nor wa
| there the same recognized duty to de
strOy it at all. In cases of that kline
there was a well-recognized militar,
necessity and duty to destroy propert!
of that kind under such circumstances
so that in making the contract sucl
losses could fairly be considered as in
tended to come within the scope of tn
exception. But there is no well-knowl
necessity or duty or practice of burn
ing buildings in case of plague or othe
infectious diseases. On the whole W
are of the opinion that within tn
meaning of these policies the loss mus
. he regarded as caused by the order o
the Board of Health and not by tn
bubonic plague. Whether the Board o
Health was justified in issuing the or
der is not before u.s."
Chief Justice Frear wrote the opinion
which are concurred I'm by Associate
Justices Galbraith and Perry. The at
torneys for the Yee Wo Chan were Pau
Neumann and w. A. Whiting. L. A
Thurston and Robertson & Wilder wer
for the Magdeburg and Transatlantic
Companies j. T. De Bolt for the Hawai-
; Land Company and Castle and Weave
for the Lion Insurance Company