Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

99i

§ 560.

who have control of her It is unquestionably a hardship upon an

innocent owner if his ship can be placed in such a predicament through some act of f olly, timidity, or bad f aith on the part of any person to whose immediate control it has passed in conséquence of a contract he has lawfully made. But this seems to have been regarded, up to the present, as one of the risks inseparable from the horrible calamity of war .... The argument presented here on behalf of the owners and charterers seems to assume that in all cases a liability to condemnation rests upon some proved delinquency, and must be regarded as in the natme oi a punishment. But if this were so, there would be no foundation for those numerous décisions in which the property of owners has been condemned in conséquence of acts done by the charterers, or their agents, who are in no way under the owners' control or where owners, or charterers, have had theh property condemned as the conséquence of acts done by masters, or other agents, outside the legitimate scope

of their authority [résumé des affaires de YOrozembo [1807],

oü Sir William Scott confisca le navire neutre, bien que ni le propriétaire, ni le capitaine ne fussent coupables d'aucune connivence, et du navire Carolina [1802], oü le même juge déclara la prise bonne et valable, quoique le capitaine eüt été contraint par les autorités francaises a transporter dans son navire un détachement militaire en Egypte] .... These cases shew that if a ship has been tmned de facto into an instrument of hostility in the service of the enemy Government by the act ot the persons, lawfully in charge of her, even though such persons, as well as the owners or charterers, are free from moral delinquency, the conséquence of condemnation attachés. The principle to be collected rrom these and other authorities is that, though the proprietary rights of innocent owners or charterers are not to be prejudiced by the acts of persons other than themselves or those placed in charge of the ship- they are nevertheless amenable to the conséquence of acts done by the latter, and that if these allow themselves to be intimidated or cajoled into rendering services to the enemy, the only remedy, if any, open to the owners or charterers, is against the persons who have led the agents or one or other of them into so false a position

Au contraire, la Cour suprème des Straits Settlements a expressément refusé de déclarer de bonne prise un navire neutre, qui, d'abord, avait été capturé pour cause de transport de contrebande destinée au Gouvernement de 1'Inde britannique, par un croiseur allemand et employé par celui-ci comme navire charbonnjer, mais qui, plus tard, avait été repris par un navire de guerre anglais [voir aussi § 779].

Pontoporos, n°. 1 (70) : „It is contended on behalf of the Crown that the ship is liable to condemnation because at the time of her captme she was in the service of the enemy; and though the service was

Sluiten