The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-11-09

separated N
colon But controlling consideration is that the words
~" and indirectly adverbs modifying the v,l ut
his is also of the adverba phrases ..bv ; sd'
These also modify caused" The words "directlv or Dc
do not modify "by INVASION, &C.. there anv Guy
to distinguish between direct and indirect invasion
and indirect rot or direct and indirect ORDER &C. THAI
De absurd The direct indirect consequences of b would
in mind. The cor" before 'by ORDER conpe ~ "At
vason' &C., with "by order" .caused directly, or ia; m
with caused" implied before ''by order Whetbor 49,
directly indirectly" continued by implication
first semicoon not, need not decide but the fact M
modify caused which certainly is implied throuobou+
the fact that direct and indirect damage are disn
the last two clauses of the paragraph would seem to point
ly that way.
Whether the words direct and indirect are svnnr
with the words proximate and remote which are 50 ~
in the law of cases of this class, need decide N
we decide whether it would make any difference in this 49,
tcuar if the word Indirectly was not implied wifi;
word Caused before the words "by order For if the %
the Board OF Health the of the fire in this no
not the direct and proxmae cause There certainly w
Independent efficient intervening between the fire %
nay caused by that order and the fire which consumed tho
sured property But holding do, that indirectvr IN
piled before the words by ORDER" least makes NORTON
this clearer than might otherwise be- For instance com
nection with the argument that the word Indirectly does m
apply to the words "by ORDER is urged that the word order
implies intention and that therefore the excepted risk was meant
to apply only to cases where there drec intention to burn
the property covered by the policy and since the civil an
thorities in this instance only intended burn only mar
hcuar buildings not including those question but ala,
took every precation and did everything they could to prevent
the fire from spreading other buildings the buildings cues
ton cannot be said have been destroyed or of the
authorities But when it considered that the exception covers
loss caused indirectly well that caused directly order Of
civil authority whatever force this argument might other
wise have disappears Gloss caused indirectly" v order
of civil authority not necessarily merely commensurate with
the order 1t may include loss caused by the though not
intended We may add that the exception in the policy not
what done by pursuance Of ORDER but oss caused
by," that is resulting FROM order The losses in question
resulted FROM that is caused by the order indirectly
directly
1t further contended especially by counsel for the plaintiffs
in the second that to exempt the insurer the order must
lawful and that the Board of Health could lawfully order the
burning of buildings The language of the policy loss caused
by order of any civil authority Nothing said about the
der being lawful and could have been the of the
insurer in inserting this clause the policy to make exem
ton from liability depend the solution of questions
to the awfunes of the orders of the civil authorities We
not mean that the insurer would be exempt
in which person body possessing civil authority might set
fire to building. In if person should
others building to be burned he might be taken have acted
In his private capacity and not civil authority though
he possessed civil authority of kind and pupored act
his official capacity But is sufficient when here the civil
authority the Board of Health, has the power under the stat
ues to destroy buildings when it necessary do this for the
public health and in the particular pupors act in its
official capacity and does in good faith and within the P
parent scope of powers In such the insured under
policy of the kind in question raise inquiry whether
the exercise of the lawful power justified by the c
stances of the particular This action contract
against who did the loss and must be governed
the terms of the What questions the insured might
properly raise action of against the alleged wrongo
though civil authority who has set his property fire an
other matter.
One question remains be considered Was the order OF the
Board of Health the of the loss from legal standpoint
Either the order the plague the There no III
dependent efficient intervening after the order Should
the plague be considered the cause the order only "
Gent that! Or should the order be considered the cause anu
the stamping out of the plague only motive that Or o
the plague be considered cause and the order an ell
cent intervening proxmate cause? Of If the o
the the defendants liable, while if the plague
the and the order efficient intervening
the defendants liable 1t is often difficult determine