Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ 637.

1098

ments une somme a titre de fret qu'au seul cas oü ü a transporte a leur port de destination les marchandises innocentes qui se trouvaient a bord et qui devaient être relachées a cause de leur caractère non-ennemi. Voir la décision concernant le voüier ennemi (allemand) : Roland (82), parti, au mois de juület 1914, de NouveUeOrléans a destination de Brême, avec une cargaison de tabac et de pieux de chêne, capturé k la hauteur des Hes Sciüy et conduit k Plymouth. Trois quarts de la cargaison de tabac se trouvaient être propriété neutre et furent relaxés. Ici, la question se posa si 1'Etat anglais était autorisé, ou non, a ne relacher cette partie de la cargaison que moyennant versement par ses propriétaires d'une certaine somme représentant le fret du transport.

„Now comes a further important question which wiü affect other cases as weü — namely, as to whether the captors of the vessel are entitled as against the cargo which has been released, to some freight. — The Crown claim to have a lien for the freight aüeged to be payable in respect of the portion of the cargo released, and to have it paid before the release. The argument on behalf of the Crown is that the shipowners are, by the German commercial law, entitied to some freight in respect of this released cargo, although it was not, and cannot be, delivered in Germany at the port of destination, and that as captors they are entitied to what the ship has earned as well as to the ship herself. This sounds quite logical, but the practice of Prize Courts (which has to deal with multifarious business affabs) shews that, although substantial justice is done, the results of what strict logic may appear to involve cannot always be attained. The old rule as to whether captors of an enemy vessel were also entitled to freight was quite clear.

Whenever a captor brought goods to the port of actual destination according to the intent of the contracting parties, he was held entitled to the freight, on the ground that the contract had been fulfüled, but in all other cases he was held not entitied to freight, although the ship might have performed a very large part of her intended voyage.

The rule was laid down in The Fortuna [1802] and The Vrow Anna Catharina [1806], and some exceptions which emphasised the rule were dealt with in The Diana [1803] and The Vrow Henrietta. — I have been asked to abandon this rule where, according to the contract, it appears that some freight might be recoverable where only part of the intended voyage has been covered. So far as I know, the rule has never been departed from ; and in a coüection of cases published in America in 1906 it is stül regarded as the rule of International Prize Law (see Scott's Cases on International Law, pp. 631 and 632). — Evidence was given before me as to the German commercial law, to the effect that some freight, depending on distances, times, expenses, risks, &c. is recoverable by the shipowner or person entitied to the freight in certain cases (captures as prize inclu-

Sluiten