Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ 667.


On March i, 1916, notice of motion was served on behalf of the appellants in respect of the vessel asking that the Registrar's report should not be conf irmed on the ground that the evidence was insufficiënt and related to the value before the war.... The motion came on for hearing on AprU 10,1916, when the Chief Justice confirmed the report of the Registrar .. . ."

Les propriétaires du navire avaient demandé que la décision fut ajournée jusqu'a la fin de la guerre.

„Theh Lordships express no opinion as to whether the appeüants may ultimately be able to establish a case for indemnity under the Sixth Hague Convention.... [voir § 373] ... . With regard to the proceedings in the Court below, under Order XXIX of the Prize Court Rules, they appear to have been perfectly regular. In particular, their Lordships consider that no mistake was made in not selecting the date for valuation contended for by the appeüants [une date postérieure au début des hostüités, laqueüe d'aiUeurs n'apparait pas du jugement].

The only possible question is whether the appeüants' application for an adjournment untü the end of the war, on the ground that during the war they were not in a position to obtain evidence of value, ought to have been granted.... [rejet de cette objection]...."

(3) II en est de même du cas oü 1'évaluation s'est effectuée en vertu de l'„Order" XI des „Pnze Court Rules, 1914" (modifié en 1915), j18. les n08. 23 et 24 de l'„Appendix A" desdites „Rules". En ce cas, comme en celui mentionné sous (2), 1'estimation en dehors de la cour par le „Marshal", après consultation d'experts, n'est pas considérée par la Cour comme définitive. Voir 1'affaire du Consul Olsson (1309), oü ü s'agissait des faits suivants:

„The goods in question, consisting of phosphates (réquisitionnés par la Couronne), have been appraised merely as a cargo to be used for fertüising purposes, without taking into account the urgent demand for phosphates in the manuf acture of munitions of war. The claimants therefore contended that the appraisement had proceeded on an erroneous basis ; but for the Crown it was argued that the valuation fixed by the appraisement (par le „Marshal" sur avis d'experts) was conclusive."

La cour rejeta cette prétention :

„The claim is founded upon the alleged cost of the phosphates, inclusive of freight and expenses, the trade profit expected to have been made in the claimants' business after manuf acture of the phosphates into superphosphates, and interest, upon these amounts, from 1915 to 1919... Pending the claim ..... but without notice to the claimants, appraisement was made of the phosphates under an order of the Court, dated March 2,1916 .... On the part of the Crown, the appraisement and payment into Court of the amount are relied upon as making f tül satisfaction

of aü claims of the claimants cognizable in this Court The existence

of a general rule that an appraisement of goods in prize is conclusive»