The Hawaiian gazette., 1901-09-27
ALL CLAIMS
ARE FILED
Total Before Fire
Commission is
$3,2OO,OOO.
CFrom wednesday, daily

At A o'clock yesterday afternoon the
last claim for damages resulting from
the plague fire of 1900 was filed with
the Court of Fire Claims, and no more
will now be received. The grand total
of all claims made against the govern
ment because of the fire is approXi-
mately 6,7s9, and the total amount of
damages asked by these claimants Is
$4,000, 900, or more than double the
the purpose.
However large the total seems, and
Notwithstanding the large excess over
the appropriation of s1,50O,OO0, II is
pretty safe to say that this amount
will be sufficient to pay all the awards
made by the commission. The Court
Of Fire Claims has been going very
deeply into the evidence offered by the
claimants, and the knowledge display
ed by the commissioners as to the cir
cumstances surrounding individual
cases has been a matter of considera-
BILE surprise to the claimants and their
attorneys.
There are very few of the claims
which will not be reduced to some eN-
tent, and a large propirtion will very
likely be cut in two. quite a few
claims in which fraud was shown Will
perhaps be thrown out altogether and
the exorbitant values placed by some
of the native claimants particularly,
upon articles of no intrinsic value, VIII
suffer severely at the hands of the
court. There are very few claims but
which the values fixed We're found to
be the price paid by claimant, often
times five to ten years before the fire,
and probably three or four times the
real value of the articles in question.
The claimants unblushingly admitted
these facts, and in many cases testified
that the goods in question mad Deen|
purchased from secondhand dealers.
The court will not pass upon claims|
until ready to decide them all. which,
will not be for some months yet
An interesting point was raised be-
fore the commission yesterday which,
may affect hundreds of claims. In theI
case of a Japanese a claim was madel
for the destruction of additions and
improvements made to the bullding|
occupied under lease. Attorney ii. A.
Bigelow represented the claimant, and
stated that the claim was perfectly
proper, in that the lease did not give|
the landlord possession of the improve
ments when the tenant moved out.
Chairman Macfarlane was not inclin-|
ed to take that view, and stated that
the claimant must present a waiver of
rights from the landlord before the|
court could consider his claim.
This brought an extended argument
between the commissioners, and Depu-I
ty Attorney General Douthtt on one|
side, and Mr.. Bigelow on the other.
Mr.. Bigelow coRtended that fixtures,
improvements ana buildings erected
upon leased land could be moved byI
the tenant unless there was stipula-
ton to the contrary in the lease, and
provided that such removal did not
injure the property of the landlord.
Mr.. Douthtt replied that the hNedI
property, if built at the expense Of theI
tenant, became the property of thel
landlord upon the expiration of the !
lease. He stated, however that shelly
ing and such fixtures as could be re- |
moved without deterioration to the /
property of the landlord might be car
ried off by the tenant. Mr.. BigelowI
replied that all additions or improve
ments made by the tenant was hisS
If the landlord objected. He offeredS
to cite cases in support of his view,
and 1t was finally agreed by the com
mission to allow him to submit brief
upon the subject. Chairman Macfar-
lane stated that he had always been
under the impression that buildings
erected by tenant upon leased land
became the property of the landlord
upon the expiration of the lease unless
a different stipulation had been made b.
in the agreement. He said that he was
willing to be convinced of his error inb
this regard, and that the court wouldS
be pleased to examine any authoritiesR
and opinions submitted by Mr.. Bige-
low. He stated that this was a very -
important question, as it involved1
hundreds of similar claims in which -
the same point might be raised. The
court had always demanded a waiverS
from the landlord in cases where the
claim was by tenant for property on
leased ground. and il an error had5
been made, the court would like toE
hear authorities upon the question.
Mr.. Bigelow was asked to file his brief
as soon as possible in order that the
general might have opportu-
nifty to reply.