The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-10-31
DECISIONS IN THE
CHINATOWN CASES
NO Civil Commotion Here at the
Time Of the Fire.
s--RsysCGA.s -:
so SUPREME COURT HOLDS IN ONE
APPEALED SUIT FOR INSURANCE
In Two Others Declared That the Conasr lion was Done
by the Act of the Civil
Author les

Three of the Chinatown assurances
we're decided yesterday by the Supreme
Court
/ In the case of the Yee Wo Chan Com
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 exceptions of the defend
ants.
In zee Wo Chan against the MaSde-
burg Fire Insurance Company in which
/ the defendants were given Judgment by
Judge Silliman the decision is likewise
affirmed.
The third case. the Hawaii Land
Company against the Lion Fire Insur-
ance Company, was submitted on an
agreed statement of facts and 1t is de-
cided for the defendants IN the same
opinion and on the same grounds as the
Magdeburg case.
l These three cases arose out of the
burning Of Chinatown on January 10th
last and are representative Of lerge
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 Goth 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 fartheSt inland was 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.
J The fire accidentally spread to The
) Kaumakapili 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 Ere origin eted.
There was only a 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
zee 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 is
on this ground that the insurance COM
pany refused to pay the policy, claim
ing that there was a civil commotion
in Honolulu as result Of the bubonic
plague epidemic. In this case the court
holds:
That phrase civil commotion' is no
doubt of broad meaning. but it cannot
be stretched to cover the condition pre-
vailing 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. It 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 wild. tumultuous, violent, turou-
. lent or seditious nature which the
, and which 1t was intended to Imply IN
this policy as shown by the words With
which 1t Is associated. The interrupts
to business was orderly. deliberate and
for peaceful and laudable purposes. /.
The plague itself was not 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 in order 20 escape the
. flames and had to be safely conducted
elsewhere and noe allowed to scatter
in the uninfected portions OF the city,
but IL there was a civil commotion then
it did not cause the fire; the fire caused
it."
1t 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 they
. should not be liable for loss or damage
: caused by civil commotion." and jude-
ment is given for the plaintiffs.
. BY CIVIL AUTHORITY.
& Quite q different state of facts exists
8 In the other two cases. the Haw ali
2 Land Company vs.. the Lion Insurance
= Company and zee Wo Chan against the
: Magdeourg Insurance Company In
!. me policies sued upon there was q
!. clause which expressly exempted thu
. companies from liability for loss caus.
60 directly or indirectly by invasion
lnsurrection. riot. civil war OF commo.
!" uon. or military or usurped power. o,
. oy order OF any civil authority. I,
: was upon this last clause in the po,,c,
that the defendants relied and ,n,.
point settled the case in their favor.
The language of the policy is analy..
ed at great length by the opinion tn.