Insurance Case Judgment—actually were going on in An important insurance case] game to a conclusion in the Shanghai, Special District Court on Aug. 8 with Judgment being given by the Gourt for the insurers. Local busi nese circles attached srreat interest to the case as it involved a dispute] Aug.' over the causes of a fire which broke out in the recent Sino-Japanes hostilities near Shanghai and a question, of whether an insurance insurance agent with its office Hankow Road, for damages al to have been suitored in consequence of a fire which broke out in plaintif's store on February 2 last. The amount claimed was Tis, 10,000.
'Represented by Mr. Linn' Yun-chin, attorney-at-law, the plaintiffs stated in the Court that on March 18, 1931, they took out a fire in-policy from the defendants, agreed by both parties thet the insurance would be good for one year.
At about five am. on February 2 last, a fire broke out on the insured premises situated at 8263-9266 Seward Road and completely gutted the building and the goods stored therein. As to the Givse'of the fice plaintive asserted fat i broke out" through nataral fuses and was not enured by has: {ities between Chinese snipers and mes marines ae alleged by de-Zendants, "In support of their contention, "the" plants produced Gourt a letter from the 19th Route Army's headquarters, denying ing sent any snipers to the Hone.
"Distuct "during "the" recent 'Mim Listang San, of Messrs gon" Gor tepreserting the de: Fendonta, Vased' he contention on free points Firstly, counsel star the defendants. wore the agents for Thuvingia Insorance Coy a: Ges: oan tin and" that the plaints Took out the tire insurance policy
the 'Geman "Sep Ageording from the detonintny Article 956 of. the. Civ Code," said hardly. maintain that' the United 'Trading' Ca. should be sued defendants in lie of their prin Secondly, counsel stated, cond tion 21 of the insurance contract in this case expressly provided that the agents should' in no case be responsible nor could their personal property be attached on account, of any alleged loss of the assured.
Thirdly, the insurance policy in the present case contained, inter alla, the conditions that the' insarance did not cover loss or damage occasioned, directly or indirectly, by invasion, the act of foreign enemy, or warlike operations, riot, rebellion, the exercise of mi ary' on usurped power, the admin-
or under martial law, ete. a state When the fire of February 2 occurred, defence counsel continued, Hongkew district was in state of siege by the Japanese marine authorities and the S.M.C. declared a state of emergency. An official fetter from the Japanese Consulate-General, dealing with the cireumstances in which the. fire occurred, fated that investizetions made by the Japanes consular police reveal.
a that early on the morning of february 2, 'Chinese snipers from within the upper story of 8263-3266 Seward Road' fired' on Japanese rine sentries who, replied, Thr stated in conclusion that likely that the snipers, in e¢k their path of retreat, set fire to the house, In support of his contention that the fire was caused by warlike operations, defence counsel also produea report from the Shanghai Fire Brigade to the effect that the hostilities were going on in. Hongkew between Chinese snipers and Japanese marines on Febraary view of the evidence, defence' coun-tel contended, it was very clear that even if the plaintiffs had suffered damage, such damag was due to warlike operations and therefore the defendants were not responsible for compensation, ing his ease on th contention, defendants' asked th Court to dismiss the Court el hat the defend eGo, were jointly their principal, Thurin of their customers inasmuch as the German firm had not been registered with the Government. The Court, however, stated that the most important int in the case was whether the fire of February 2 was caused through warlike oper ations. 'The Court held the fire was caused through hostilities on the ground that, although the Tetter from the 19th Route Army denied any' Chinese snipers' activities Hough there were no hostile. a ow, It failed to prove that wart of Japanese marine and according to both poli Bre brigade reports, hostlites Hongkew day of the fre.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.