Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ 594.

1042

Dans le même sens : Pacific and San Francisco (774). Voir aussi:

Constantinos (302). „That (the unsatisfactory ship's papers) offered ground for suspicion cannot be doubted [comp. § 692 et ss.] and I think they justified the naval authorities in bringing the vessel before a Prize Court, so that the owners have only themselves to thank for any loss or inconvenience which they may have suffered in conséquence."

Dans le cas du Bonna (913) [comp. pour les faits ci-dessus, § 493, (1), p] la demande en dommages-intérêts des propriétaires fut rejetée pour les motifs que la situation du port de débarquement (Gothembourg) était favorable au transbordement de la cargaison pour 1'Allemagne; que quelques expéditeurs et consignataires étaient suspects; que les importations suédoises des marchandises en question avaient augmenté considérablement au cours de la guerre, et que la capture faisait surgn „a serious and novel point of law". Des motifs similaires décidèrent la cour d'appel a rejeter la demande en dommages-intwêts dans 1'affabe des F alk and other vessels (1379) • Cette dernière décision fait ressortb clabement jusqu'a quel point la juridiction des prises anglaise a atténué la condition de „reasonable cause".

„The foundation of the right, variously expressed in different cases, may be said to be the existence of reasonable suspicion, it may be of illegitimate traffic, it may be of enemy character, it may be of illegal action or service or what not, but there must be such suspicion as warrants inquby into the facts and adjudication upon them by a properly constituted Court — see the judgment of Story, J., in The George [1815], quoted with approval in The Ostsee [1855]. Even slight grounds of suspicion may suf f ice. In The Elizabeth [1809] the reason given by the Lords of Appeal for condemning the captors in cost was that there appearéd to be scarcely any ground for detaining the vessel. The Judicial Comaattee's judgment in The Baron Stjernblad (876) develops the matter. In a case where it' has become apparent, by statistical evidence or otherwise, that a considerable proportïon of the collective imports into a neighbouring neutral country of a particular commodity, which is in its nature contraband, does in fact proceed by a <x>ntinuous transit into the enemy territory, any particular importer of such goods belongs to a class of importers, some of whom, at any rate, must be obviously engaged in contraband trade. Suspicion then attachés to all, and the question is one of the existence oi reasonable suspicion, not of the possession of proof attaching that suspicion to a particular member of the class. The suspicion, for example, attachés to the particular goods by reason of the cbcumstance connected with the class of goods generaUy that it is in its nature contraband. Those who seize on the grounds of reasonable suspicion are entitled to the benefit of such evidence as other

Sluiten