Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ 101.


„Decret-Orgariizarea'', article 48 et chap. III, section III (articles 49—58) (De l'appel). Russie.

Règlement sur les prises de 1895, titre III, chap. II, articles 77, 78, 83—86, 87, 89, 91, 93. Siam. Décret du 20 juillet 1917, article 10. Turquie. Loi du 31 janvier 1921, article 25. (2) Les droits des prises nationaux sont d'accord pour reconnaltrea 1'instance d'appel le caractère d'une instruction nouvelle de 1'affaire a fond, et non seulement d'un simple examen nouveau des questions juridiques seules. Voir, entre autres, la décision du Comité judiciaire du Conseü privé britannique concernant 1'Ophelia (354): „The question whether the Ophelia was entitled to protection from

capture is almost entirely a question of fact The Attorney-

General has contended that the findings of the Judge below should be

held conclusive Their Lordships are of opinion that this appeal

must be treated as a rehearing, in the same way as an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a Judge sitting without a jury in the High Court. There is jurisdiction to review the findings of the Judge ; but the Appeal Court gives very great weight to the fact that the Judge below hears the wünesses, which they do not, and practically acts on the opinion of the Judge as to the credibüity of the witnesses before him and the weight to be attached to their evidence. On these points their Lordships would not lightly differ from the learned President, but many matters have been raised on the argument of the appeal which cannot be disposed of satisfactorüy by treating them as matters of fact concluded by the view of the President. Then Lordships, therefore, feel it theü duty to review the facts in some detaü."

Comp. aussi: United States, n°. 4 (i372) : It is often a convenient course, in dealing with such an appeal, f ortheü Lordships to consider the facts of the case as ü they came before them in the first instance, and then see whether the view which they would have taken agrees with the view taken by the Judge of first instance. If it does, there is an end of the matter; if it düfers entirely or on any point, then the question arises whether, f oüowing the principles on which this Board deals with appeals on questions of fact, the case is one in which the view taken by the Court of Appeal should prevaü, or one m which the view of the Judge below should beadopted and followed, notwithstanding that it is not the same as that of the appeal tribunal. (3) Les décisions des juridictions nationales rendues en appel ne