Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ 315.

58o

tions séparées de la nullité de transferts en transit [voir § 273 et ss.] et du transbordement de marchandises pendant un voyage, comme ü ressort néttement de la décision ultérieure de la même cour dans 1'affabe du Bawean (895), oü ü s'agissait des faits suivants.

Antérieurement a la guerre, 922 caisses de thé avaient été chargées, dans un port chinois, a bord du vapeur aUemand Kletst, pour être transportées a Brême. Après 1'ouverture des hostihtés (au mois d'aoüt 1914), le Kleist se réfugia dans le port neutre de Padang (Sumatra, Indes néerlandaises), oü ü demeura, avec sa cargaison, jusqu'au mois de mai 1916, quand le destinataire originaire vendit le thé a une maison néerlandaise d'Amsterdam, qui en paya le prix de vente. C'est alors que les caisses furent transbordées dansle navbe néerlandais Bawean, qui devait les transporter a Londres pour le compte des acheteurs neutres ; enfin, eUes furent saisies comme propriété ennemie dans le port de Londres.

It was intended, if the property could be got hold of at Padang, that thé' goods should be sold in London, and for that purpose, when the goods had been shipped upon a Dutch vessel, the B., that the biUs of lading should be for London. . .. Reliance has been placed upon that as showing bona fides ; but I am not quite sure whether that is the proper character to be given to it The Dutch vessel could not very weU carry the goods to Hamburg without the risk of their being captured; because unquestionably the goods, ü they were put upon the Dutch vessel and captured on theb way to Hamburg, would partake of the enemy character which attached to them before the transhipment on to the Dutch vessel. .

Now what is the effect in law ? It is quite clear law according to the Prize Courts in this country, and in America too — and I think m germany also — that goods which belong to an enemy when they are once shipped, and therefore become subject to the risk of capture at the hands of beUigerents, wül retain their enemy character until they reach their destination, and no transfer to a neutral wül be effective so as to defeat the right of capture, unless the transferee has actuaüy taken possession of the goods. I think the destination of these goods, m the sense of that principle of law, was the destination of Hamburg. In my view the goods could not be transhipped from a German vessel on to another vessel with the destination changed so as to affect the rights of a belhgerent. If that be not so, the effect of it would be that at the beginning of the war aü cargoes upon German ships which might then be afloat, if they could be transferred, might legaüy be transferred to any neutral, and therefore aü these cargoes would escape capture. That, I think, is not prize law. The doctrine has been laid down quite clearly in cases begirimng with the Vrow Margaretha [1799] andextending to later dates .... Ldtation de quelques décisions antérieures]. . . . On both these grounds the ground of my inference as to the facts, and on the question of

Sluiten