„The question axises in regard to a cargo of tobacco which was shipped on the (Norwegian) s.s. Heim, from San Domingo to Copenhagen. The charter was in February, 1915, before the Reprisals Order was promulgated. After the charter had been made, and after the Reprisals Order came into force, namely, in the beginning of April, 1915, the ship arrived at her loading port, and was loaded and left there on April 15. She was stopped about amonth later by a British patrol vessel, and was taken to Kirkwall (plus tard a Bristol) .... Under the charter a lump sum of & 6.000 was to be paid for freight, — £ 3.000 to be paid at once, and S 3.000 on arrival of the ship at Copenhagen. As the ship never did arrivé at Copenhagen, the second £ 3.000 has not become payable according to the terms of the charter. A considerable amount of expense was incurred for port dues, also for tugs' assistance, and so on, both at Kirkwall, and at Bristol, in the consumption of extra-coal and extra wages, in addition to what would have been necessary if the vessel had gone straight to Copenhagen. For those additional expenses [voir a ce sujet § 653], and for the freight, a claim is made by the shipowner .... I think that as to the freight and expenses, the shipowner is entitled to some payment. I do not say that he is entitled to the sum of £ 3.000 ; that may or may not be so. I think what is payable to him in respect of that must be taken on the basis which the Privy Councü assumed to exist in The Stigstad, and apparentiy approved as being a right basis, namely, that he should be paid a sum which takes into account „the actual course and duration of the voyage" and constitutes „a proper recompense alike for carrying and for discharging the cargo under the actual circumstances of that service" "
Du reste, la jurisprudence anglaise, eüe aussi, accordé une somme a titre de fret au cas prévu a l'article 43 de la Déclaration de Londres [hypothèse «, 30, du § 640, (1)] :
Katwijk (107) : „Now a claim has been put forward by the owners of the Katwijk to the freight (and to other sums of money which they caü demurrage, or damages for détention ; voir § 653.) The shipbelongs to a Dutch company. It is admitted that she sailed upon her voyage on September 16 (1914) carrying this cargo ^of iron ore), which was then not contraband. She started, therefore, upon a perfectiy innocent voyage. According to the principles which have been agreed upon in the Déclaration of - London — principles upon which I think it would be right for this Court to act, apart from the binding character of the Déclaration — the ship could not be condemned by reason of the cargo being declared contraband after starting on the voyage. Prima facie, therefore, the owners of this ship, the Dutch company, would be entitied to some freight.... [suivent quelques renseignements sur la prétendue relation étroite existant entre les armateurs neutres et la maison Krupp] .... Now is there enough before me to displace the prima facie claim which these people have, as owners of the ship, to the freight ? It is to be observed that at this time thére is no reason whatsoever why (the directors of the