Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ 368.

666

of the conditions attached to the offer made on Sêptetnfeèf 22 1914, the 6afe-co»dUCt was not a proper pass withitt the meaftihg of article 1 Thor Lordships agree with the view of Mr. Justice Grain that the conditions attached under the circtmlstances were manifestly reasonable. ine conditions were that the master of the Concadoro should discharge his cargo at the port to which it was consigned (savoir Port Soudan), artiving there after the allówance of a sufficiënt time for the voyage from Port Said; that she must discharge her cargo without delay, and that forty-eight hc-urs after COhipletion she must leave; Port S©üdan for Basra, a netttral port, to which the master had «IgtoaUy intended to proceed after discharging the cargo at Port Soudtó. TBÖr Lordships höld that manifestly reasonable conditions do not invalioate a pass offered under article 1. . . ." Dictum: confiscation du navire (3) II en est de même lorsque le capitaine ne quitte pas le port pour le motif qu'ü ne possède pas les espèces nécessaües pour le

voyage prescrit. ,

Concadoro (331), confirmant la décision Concadoro (7b) : „in tne second place it was argued that the inability of the master to procure the'necessary funds for his voyage brought the Concadoro under article 2 and that she was unable to leave the enemy port within the days ot grace par suite de drconstances de force majeure. In their Lordships opinion this contention cannot be maintained. The force majeure contemplated in the article is one which renders the vessel unable to leave the port and cannot be construed to include the drcumstance that the master has not been provided by the owners with sufficiënt financial resources to continue his voyage. Moreover, in the present case the mas.ter of the Concadoro was offered a loan of 530 L which was a sufficiënt sum to enable him to pay the charges at Port Said and of the Suez Canal and to take his vessel to Port Soudan."

[Voir dans le même sens la décision d'appel Turul (1067), citee

ci-après.] Grande-Bretagne.

Oriental (64), yacht k vapeur hongrois, détenu par les autorités anglaises le 13 aoüt 1914. relaxé le 15 aoüt, en vertu de 1'accord conclu avec 1'Autriche-Hongrie, mais détenu de nouveau le 24 aoüt, après que le délai de faveur avait expifé le 22 aoüt. - Confiscation

[comp. aussi § 3541- _ , , . , .

Par contre, le navne austro-hongrois Tergestea (45) ne fut pas confisqué, mais seulement détenu, pour le motif qu'ü avait été déja arrêté avant la guerre „in actions for necessanes., et que, par conséquent, ü ne pouvait partir a cause de force majeure.

De même la Cour d'appel britannique a décidé, dans 1 affaire du

Sluiten