The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-10-31

buildings. The court holds that the in
sured cannot raise such question.
THE BOARD OR PLAGUE?
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, the
order and not the fire should be regard
ed as the cause within the meaning of
the contract. But since loss by plague
is neither insured against nor excepted,
the plague cannot be regarded as the
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 the
Virginia case (mentioned in the opin-
ion) there was not the same pressing
necessity for the destruction of the
property either in point of time or al 10
the method of destroying it as there
was in the case of Insurance Company
against Boon (cited above). Nor was
there the same recognized duty to de-
stroy II at all. In cases of that kind
there was a well-recognized military
necessity and duty to destroy property
of that kind under such circumstances.
SO that in making the contract such
losses could fairly be considered as in
tended to come within the scope of the
execution But there is no well-known
necessity or duty or practice of burn
ing buildings in case Of plague or other
infectious diseases On the whole we
are of the opinion that within the
meaning of these policies the loss must
be regarded as caused by the order OF
the Board of Health and not by the
bubonic plague. Whether the Board OF
Health was justified in issuing the or
der is not before US"
Both the opinions are written by Chef
Justice Frear and are concurred in by
Justices Galbraith and Perry
The attorneys for the zee Wo Chan
Company were Paul Neumann and w.
A. Whiting, and for the Magdeburg IN
surance Company and the Transatlan-
tic Insurance Company were L. A
Thurston and Robertson and Wilder
]. T. DeBolt was attorney for the Ha-
wall Land Company and Castle and
Weaver for the Lion Insurance Com
pany.
KOOLAU CASES RESTORED
The "Koolau cases." SO called, five in
number which were thrown out OF
court at the beginning of the August
term by Judge Humphreys for failure
of the attorneys to appear. were all or
dered placed on the calendar by the
Supreme Court yesterday.
The decision in each Is the same and
is: The exception to the order of dis
missing the appeal is sustained and the
case is remanded to the Circuit Court
First Circuit. for further proceedings
consistent with this ruling. An opinion
will be filed later
The titles Of the five cases are John
Bell VS.. Palea, John Bell VS.. F. Pahia
II. II. Parker. John Bell and William
Henry VS.. Palea, and F. Pahia VS.. Fa-
lea. They arose out OF trespasses by
cattle on the Koolau side Of the ISL
and and have been appealed from the
District Court to the Circuit Court and
then to the Supreme Court.
CARSON CASE GOES TO H1GffER
COURT.
The William Carson case will be ap-
pealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals
Of the Ninth Circuit, citing in Sar
Francisco. The Supreme Court las,
week rendered judgment for the owners
and agents of the Carson, George U
Hind ct al against the Wilder's Steam
ship Company, owners of the Claudine
which ran the Carson down and sank
her and now the Wilder Company pro-
pose to take the case to San Francisco
on the questions Of law and Of fact
which are involved. The notice of ap-
peal was filed yesterday by Kinney
Ballou & McClanahan, on behalf Of the
Wilder company.
CHARGES AGAINST GUARDIAN.
| In February last charges were fled
against John Pae, guardian of Keaio-
haokalani (k). a minor. of Eva. by
| Frank Archer. and these are to be in.
vestigated In the courts. An order has
been issued by Judge Humphreys yes
terday setting the case for Friday
4