Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ 511.


pour différents motifs, dont le premier, emprunté a l'article 40 de la Déclaration de Londres, bien que seul suffisant dans 1'espèce, fut éliminé. Quant aux autres motifs,

„(counsel for the Crown contended) that there was proof, as in The Hdkan (391), of a time-charter which enabled the charterers to use the ship for a contraband trade, and made the acts of the charterers acts for which liabüity attached to the owners, and that ships were subject to confiscation by reason of the undoubted participation of the masters in the contraband transaction. They also argued that there was evidence of actual knowledge of the owners. As to the Kim, a further ground of condemnation was alleged in respect of the carriage of contraband, namely, rubber, under a false description intentionnally placed upOn the ship's papers by the charterers and the master."

[Sir Henry Duke]

„preferred to deal in the present case with the question which was the chief subject of argument before him, that namely, of the degree and nature of the „knowledge" which renders a ship liable to confiscation for carriage of contraband." .... [La décision concernant le Hdkan

(391) n'avait pas tranché la contestation] ,Since the décision in The

Hdkan (391), the cases of The Dirigo (1101) and The Ran (1185a) have been argued and determined in this Court. Each of them has a direct hearing on the problem now under consideration. The Dirigo (1101) was a case of a whole cargo of contraband, and condemnation was claimed on that ground, apart from the facts which showed knowledge on the part of the owners. Lord Sterndale, however, thought it well not to act on that contention, but to examine whether there was such knowledge, taking in this respect the same course as he had taken in a previous case of the Zamora [comp. ci-après, § 511W8, (2)]. Upon a finding of knowledge on the part of the owner, the Dirigo was condemned .... — ln the Ran (1185a), the owner of a Norwegian vessel chartered her to an American firm in October 1914, for a single voyage from New York to Scandinavian ports between Bergen and Malmö, including Copenhagen'. . . . Lord Sterndale distinguished the case of the Ran from that of the Hdkan, and pointed out that the Hdkan was chartered for the purposé of the trade in the Baltic, including German ports, in which she was engaged at the time of seizure, whereas the Ran was chartered for a specific voyage from neutral port to neutral port, was engaged in trade apparently neutral at the time of seizure, and was only brought in question because the charterer „against the owner's wish" included in the lading of the vessel some minute portion of cargo destined for an enemy country.

So far as the present case is concerned, Sir Samuel Evans' judgment in the Hdkan supports the claim of the Crown against the three ships claimed for condemnation, and its force is not weakened by the words of explanation used by Lord Sterndale in the Ran. The judgment is relied upon by the Crown in support of a proposition that the time-charter-