The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1900-08-17
EACH SIDE
WINS ONE
Two Insurance Cases
Decided.
co TO SUPREME COURT
SiIIiman Gives Ruling Opposed TO
Humphreys Other News Of
the Courts.
rrom Thursday.s Dany.l

All OF tuesday ana yesterday were
occupied by Circuit Judge sillman II
bearing the two Chinatown Insurance
cases which had been selected by ths
counsel Tor the Insurance companiei
and insured ne test cases.
These two cases involved the loss Of
goods IN Chinatown by the great fire Of
January goth last which originated ir
FIRE Get by order Of the Board Of
Health 90 destroy certain buildings
which had been condemned by the
Board az infected with plague.
Among the other property destroyed
wns the stock OF goods owned by Yc'
Wo Chan 4 CO. IN . store situated or
MauDakea near the corner Of Kinf
street.
The goods, which the plaintiff valued
at $4,000, were insured IN several dir.
ferent companies; one policy WAS FOR
$1,000 In the MnRdcbprg Insurance
Company of which gchacfcr e. Com
pany are agents The other policy was
in the Transatlantic Company, Of
which Hackfeld & Company are
agents.
The Magdeburg policy II on what Is
known as the STANDARD form" This
form contains provision that the
Company WIN not be responsible for
any loss or damage by fire accustomed
by the invasion OF foreign enemy, In
surrectioD, ciyii commotlon. riot, or
military or usurpcd power"
The insurance companies having poll
Giles under this form claim that the
conditions existing In Honolulu at the
time the loss occurred constituted II
ffgltyll L.. q
an extraordinary and abnormal char
acter which had not been fOresecn or
contemplated by the Companies nj the
time Of making the insurance con-
tract; that II was more dangerous 10
the companies In fact than would have
been riot or lnsurrcction, IN that the
Government Itself was creating the
fires, and that ordinary protection from
fires 10 Wit; the Fire Department and
the owners of the property, was not
only lacking, but the Fire Department
Itself was the agency through which
the destruction by fire was carried out.
The Insured claimed that the words
"ciyil cOmmOtlon" ala not cover the
conditions existing here ut the time Of
the fire, but necessarily involved some
form Of rlotOus demonstration or per-
sOnal violence,
Judge sllllman took the latter view
ana decided that the exemption clause
dld not relieve the Insurance company
from liability, In that there was, nc
cOrding 30 hlg view, no clyil connection
IN Honolulu AZ the time Of the loss.
The other or standard" form OF
policy contained an exemption from
liability on the part u the Company 10
the effect that II the fire WAS caused
directly or Indirectly by net ~ the
ciyIl authorities, the Company should
not be liable.
The companies ualng This form claim
that this fire Wrs caused by act Of a
ciyil authority, to wit: tho Board Of
Health, and therefore tncy nre not
liable.
The Insured claim. on the other hand,
that the exemption from liability ex-
lists only when the ciyil authority caus-
ing the fire possessed lawful authority
40 cause the IRE; that the Bonrd Of
Health had no such authority, and
therefore II Wag the net not Of ciyll
authority but an unlawful act OF un-
authorized individuals.
II was argued on behalf Of the In
surance Company that the Court should
not 30 behind the record and examine
into whether o. not II was necessary
for the eradication Of the plague 10
burn buildings. or whether the Board
81 Health IN fact had authority 20 !
burn; that for the purposes Of this case |
II was sufficient II a ciyil authority Or
dercd the fire.
The Court held that the IRE IN ques-
tlop was caused by a ciyil authority, 10 |
wit; the Board OF Health. that the
Court would not go into tho question Of
whether the Board of Health had
authority 10 order the FIRE or not, that
the loss of the goods IN question, al
though they were IN n separate build
ipg from that IN which the original fire
Wns set was nevertheless caused d.
reotly BY the Board OF Health fire.
The Court therefore held that the |
loss came within the exemption clause |
in the policy, and the Company was
not liable for the loss,
Both parties have appealed 10 the |
Supreme Court ana the question viii |
so there fpr delermlnation al the next /
term.
Judge slliman's decision was render,
81 orally a written decision rs 10 DE
llel hereafter IN both cases