Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

671

§ 971.

those of the Gutenfels, n°. 1 (40) and the Barenfels, n°, 1 (43), except in one curious partitfldar. Art. 1 draws a distinction between ships which enter an enemy port with, and those which enter without, knowledge of the outbreak of bostflÉties. It is piain that the Marquis' Bacquehem had notice of the war in the course of her voyage. On hearing the news she might have shaped her course for a neutral harbour in the Red Sea, yet she preferred to go on to Suez, and as she entered that port with' taowledge of the war, she could not in strictness claim any benefit under article 2. — If the news had reached her through any source but that of a British man-of-war, I apprehend that we should have no option but to condemn her to confiscation.... Although it is true that after being warned the Marquis Bacquehem might have run for a neutral port, it certainly does seem hard that she should be in a worse plight because the (man-of-war) allowed her to proceed instead of taking her before a Prize Court, especially as this permission seems to have been given in the beüef that the ship was entitled to consideration in consequence of her ignorance that war had broken out. Moreover, no stipulation was made that she should go to a neutral port, and she may have been encourage"d in the belief that she could enter Suez in security

Pour ces motifs la cour donna „an order for détention during the war, and restoration to her owners at its conclusion."

Cependant, cette décision fut réformée par la Cour d'appel de Londres, paree que le navire devait avoir connu 1'état de guerre avant qu'il fut arrêté et paree qu'en outre, les prescriptions précises des articles ier et 2 ne lui étaient pas applicables :

Marquis Bacquehem (328), confiscation du navire.

g) Détention des navires. Portée de l'art. 2, alinéa 2.

§ 371. Dans la jurisprudence anglaise il s'est présenté quelque différence d'opinion sur le dispositif de la sentence a prononcer au sujet des navires ennemis auxquels s'applique l'article 2. Cette différence se manifeste clairement a la comparaison des deux décisions suivantes, 1'une (sub a) de la Cour des prises de Londres, 1'autre (sub b) de celle pour 1'Egypte (rendue par le président seul, de 1'avis contraire de 1'autre juge de la cour).

a) Chüe (1). Pendant les plaidoiries le président de la Cour des

Iprises de Londres avait soulevé la question du sens exact de l'art. 2. L',.Attorney-General" y avait répondu que : „he understood it meant that at the end of the war a merchant ship satisfymg the conditions of art. 2 would be restored, without payment of compensation by the Government. He did not understand that meantime the property ot the ship would pass from the owners to the British Crown

Sluiten