Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ 115.

20Ó

Councü award costs to the Crown, although in each case the décision of the Prize Court upholding the title of the captors was affirmed. Nor have I found in any of the available records any case in which costs have been given either to or against the Crown."

Dans une décision postérieure, en date du 23 mars 1920, Sir Henry Duke résumé de la facon suivante la pratique de la Cour de Londres: Drottning Sophia and other vessels (1326a): „There are certain events of prize prcceedings in which the liabüity for costs and charges, and the nature of the security for that liabüity, are already weü ascertained. Apart from any exceptional circumstances, goods and proceeds 01 goods which are the subject of proceedings in pnze are, according to the ordinary practice of the Court, subject to a charge for costs and charges of seizure and detention. If the captor obtains a decree of condemnation, his interest in the goods or fund, the subject of the decree, is charged with these costs and expenses. If the claimant succeeds in the cause, the decree in his favour leaves him to bear the hkeburden In a unreported case of The Adonis*), Lord Sterndale recently stated the position to this effect: If goods are condemned, the Crown bears the expenses of keeping them out of the fund got by condemnation ; where thfgoods are released, the expenses are taken out of the fund which is released : where baü has been given and goods are condemned, there is simplv an order of condemnation, and no order is made as to the repayment of the expenses, but that has simply been the custom in the Registry and no case in which the question arose whether it was right has come before either the Judge or the Registrar. Thesubstantial question now at issue is that which was left undecided in The Adonis namely whether a claimant who obtains release on baü of a captured ship or goods should be required, as a condition of the release, to pay unconditionaüy the costs and expenses already incurred. A cette question la cour répond par la négative: To add to the loss of the confiscable subject the loss of an amount, which is properly only a charge upon that subject, seems to me inconsistent with the general practice of the Court in relation to the release of captured property. It would also, in my opinion be mconsistent with the terms of the form of prize bond which is found m Appendix A. to the Prize Rules, 1914-"

»1 Plus tard, cette décision a été publiée; voir Adonis, Mckerieand other vessels (1311). Dans cette afiaire les propriétaires neutres de certains tofs de^afé saisis * titre de contrebande de guerre, et do„t ,,s ava-ent obtenu la délivrance „on bail», demandèrent, après la vahdation de la pnse la restitution de certaine Comme qu'ils avaient été tenus de payer au profit^de la Couronne pour la conservation des marchandises. Cette demande fut dans respèce accordée par Lord Sterndale, alors.,Master of the Rolls". qmaccenma, toutefois, les traits particuliers du cas soumis k sa décision et quipour ce motif, déclara expressément ne vouloir pas formuler une règle générale.

Sluiten