The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-09-25
ALL CLAIMS |
ARE FLED
Total Before Fire
Commission is |
| $3,20O,O0O. |
NEW QUESTION
IS RAISED,
''Attorneys Contend That Buildings
Standing on Leased Land Be.
long to the Tenant.

: At 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon the
last claim for damages resulting from
the plague fire of 1900 was filed with
Ethe Court of Fire Claims, and no more
will now be received. The grand total
Rof all claims made against the govern
ment because of the fire is approx
&mately 6,7S9, and the total amount of
damages asked by these claimants is
So, 900, or more than double thej
Samount allowed by the Legislature fory
1.-THE purpose.
However large the total seems. andI
Notwithstanding the large excess oyerl
Ethe appropriation of s1,5oO,OOO, it isl
Epretty safe to say that this amount
Swill be sufficient to pay all the awards'
&made by the commission. The Court
$of Fire Claims has been going veryI
&deeply into the evidence offered by the|
Eclaimants, and the knowledge display-I
Fed by the commissioners as to the Girl
$cumstances surrounding individual
Ecases has been a matter of considera-
&ble surprise to the claimants and theirI
Hattorneys.
There are very few OF the claims|
(which will not be reduced to some ext
&tent, and large propirtion will very|
Slikely be cut in two. Quite a few|
Sclaims in which fraud was shown will
Eperhaps be thrown out altogether, andI
1.-THE exorbitant values placed by someI
&of the native claimants, particularly
Eupon articles of no intrinsic value. will
Ssuffer severely at the hands of theI
3court. There are very few claims butt
(which the values fixed We're found toI
be the price paid by claimant, often
ktimes five to ten years before the fire,
Sand probably three or four times thel
Ereal value of the articles in question.
sThe claimants unblushingly admitted
these facts, and in many cases testified
kthat the goods in question had beenS
purchased from second hand dealers.
q The court will not pass upon claims
suntil ready to decide them all, which
zWill not be for some months vet
An interesting point was raised bel
fore the commission yesterday which,
zmay affect hundreds of claims. In the&
lease of Japanese claim was made
sfor the destruction of additions and
improvements made to the building
occupied under lease. Attorney H. A
! Bigelow represented the claimant, and T
Estated that the claim was perfectlyk
1.-THE landlord possession of the improve
sments when the tenant moved out T.
chairman Macfarlane was not inclin- i
fed to take that view, and stated that
1.-THE claimant must present a waiver of J.
rights from the landlord before the
scourt could consider his claim
This brought an extended argument
between the commissioners, and Depu- f.
Ity Attorney General Douthitt on one
.side, and Mr.. Bigelow on the other
Mr.. Bigelow commended that fixtures,
improvements and buildings erected +
upon leased land could be moved by
the tenant unless there was a stipula-
,tion to the contrary in the lease, and
provided that such removal did not b
1nJure the property of the landlord.
Mr.. Douthitt replied that the fixed
property, if built at the expense of the
tenant, became the property of the
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. Bigelow
replied that all additions or improve
ments made by the tenant was his
property, and could be removed even
If the landlord objected. He offered
to cite cases in support of his view, u
and 1t was finally agreed by the COM q
iliSSioH " dIlOW MIN TO submit a brief -
upon the subject Chairman Macfar-
lane stated that he had always been &
under the impression that buildings
erected by tenant upon leased land n
became the property of the landlord q
Upon the expiration of the lease unless n
different stipulation had been made ID
n the agreement. He said that he wasW
Wiling to be convinced of his error in g
his regard, and that the court would s
'e pleased to examine any authorities p,
ind opinions submitted by Mr.. Bige- u
oW. He stated that this was a very a.
important question, as it involved
hundreds of similar claims in which 81
he same point might be raised The q
curt had always demanded waiverW
rom the landlord in cases where theM
lam was by tenant, for property on =
aased ground, and if an error had q
'een made, the court would like tot
ear authorities upon the question !
lr. Bigelow was asked to file his brief =
S soon as possible in order that the
ttorney general might have opportu-
ity to reply.
a U