Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar


§ 511.

is contraband intended for an enemy destination has been held sufficiënt to condemn the ship as against the owner, and to be equivalent really to the owners own knowledge. It is to be remembered that knowledge of the misdescription („gum" au lieu de „rubber") is not of itself enough ; there must be a knowledge of the misdescription under such circumstances as to lead to the inference that the person who knew of the misdescription also knew of the contraband nature and contraband destination of the goods. I can find no case in which such knowledge on the part of a charterer, even if it existed, has been held sufficiënt to justify the condemnation of the ship. The strongest passage to which I was referred, and in fact the only passage, I think, of any importance in which the relations of charterer and owner with regard to this matter have been laid down, is in the décision of the late President in The Hdkan (391), where hé said .... „Moreover, if owners, in times of war, and in waters favourable to contraband trading, enter into timecharter contracts, it would be placing premiums upon contraband trading to allow the owners to protect themselves by relying on charterparties and sheltering themselves behind a screen of ignorance of their own deliberate construction. The vessel's immunity or penal responsibility ought not to depend upon such

arrangements." Now, the Hdkan was a small vessel — not ocean going ,

she was chartered for the purpose of traffic in the Baltic, and was carrying contraband articles to Lübeck, and it was to that circumstance that the learned President was alluding when he said „in waters favourable to contraband trading". I do not think, however, that the principle he laid down is confined to those facts and I think that he meant to say that if the result of the charter is to take the disposal of the vessel out of the hands of the owner and leave the charterer to do what he likes with her, then the owner cannot escape the consequences of what the charterer does, because he has chosen to give the control of it over to the charterer. I do not think that the learned President had unter his consideration a

charter of the description I have before me here. As I have pointed

out, this is a charter for one trans-Atlantic trip of a Norwegian vessel

to Scandinavian ports, and I do not think that that constitutes such a handing over and divestment of responsibility on the part of the owner as was under the contemplation of the late President in the passage which I have read

(2) Dans 1'affaire des Kim, Björnstjerne Björnson and Alfred Nobel, n°. 2 (1329), le troisième président de la Cour de Londres a eu a statuer de nouveau sur un cas d'affrètement, simüaire a ceux dont ses deux prédécesseurs avaient été saisis. Mais dans cette affaire il s'agissait de time charters conclus en 1912 et 1913 pour un terme de neuf ou dix ans ; c'était sous 1'empire de ces charters que les trois navires norvégiens furent capturés pour cause de transport de contrebande, au mois de novembre 1914 [vob sur ce transport entre autres § 470, (7)]. La confiscation des navbes fut demandée