Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ no.


ege, or reliëf under any of the Hague Conventions of 1907, he shall be entitled to appear as a claimant and to argue his claim before this Court..."

La Cour des prises pour 1'Afrique du Sud (le Cap) est arrivée a la même conclusion, mais par la voie d'une argumentation différente, qui part de la faculté de la Couronne anglaise de renoncer k ses droits stricts [comp. § 64 et ss.]. Voir Hamm andApolda, n°. 2 (16):

„A preliminary objection has been taken that the master of the ship, as' representing the owners, who were alien enemies, was not entitled to be heard in this Court, because, it was said, they had not shown any ground upon which they were entitled to be heard. The position was that under the Hague Convention, by article 2, a merchant ship which, owing to circumstances beyond its contrei, may be unable to leave the enemy's port within the time contemplated in the preceding article 1, or which was not allowed to leave, may not be confiscated [comp.

§' 365 et ss.] If these articles are bmding, the ignorance of the

owners or master of the ship becomes an important element in this case It is perfectly true that under the ordinary rules of Prize Courts an enemy is not, as a general rule, entitled to be heard, but there are exceptions, and it is surely within the province of His Majesty to waive any right he may have to refuse to allow the enemy to appear m one of his Courts, and, if the Crown waives that right, then it certainly gives a right to the enemy to be heard. Under the Hague Convention the Crown has made it one of the elements that a ship, if ignorant, could not be condemned. I cannot see how it is possible for that fact to be brought out in a Court of Justice without hearing the person who is supposed to have the knowledge. I cannot see how the Crown can very well prove that a ship which enters a harbour had knowledge or had not

knowledge ; it is an element in the case, and if it is an element and

no condemnation can take place until that fact has been decided, then the Crown must be deemed to have waived its right and permitted the enemy to come into court in order to give evidence upon this point."

Quelques semaines plus tard la Cour des prises pour 1'Egypte s'est ralliée a la manière de voir de Sir Samuel Evans. Le président de cette cour ne se fait même pas scrupule de qualifier de „barbare" la règle ancienne. En outre, elle étend le principe formulé par Sir Samuel Evans au dela des limites par lui tracées, en 1'appliquant également aux cas dans lesquels les sujets ennemis invoquent d'autres conventions, comme celle de 1888 relative au Canal de Suez, ou la situation légale singulière de 1'Egypte. Voir sa décision concernant le Gutenfels, n°. 1 (40) :

„We are called upon to decide whether we shall observe the old rule that (with certain limited exceptions) no alien enemy can be heard in a British Prize Court, or whether we shall admit any, and if so what,