SHIP CHARTERPARTY DEMURRAGE-PERIOD OF DEMURRAGE NOT SPECIFIED DETENTION OF SHIP BEYOND A REASONABLE TIME-DAMAGES.

Inverkip S.S. Co. v. Bunge (1917) 1 K.B. 31. This was an action to recover damages for detention of a ship, in lieu of demurrage, in the following circumstances. The charterparty provided for the payment of demurrage at a specified rate if the ship should be detained any longer than five days, but did not specify any limit to the period of detention. After the termination of the lay days, the charterers had not commenced to load the vessel, whereupon the shipowners gave notice that they would no longer accept payment of the specified rate of demurrage, but would claim damages. The vessel having been detained beyond a reasonable time, the action was brought by the shipowners to recover damages for the detention, but Sankey, J., who tried the action, held that the plaintiffs could only recover for demurrage at the specified rate.

BANKRUPTCY COMPANY REGISTERED IN ENGLAND BRITISH DIRECTORS ALIEN ENEMY SHAREHOLDERS-ENGLISH COMPANY CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN ENEMY COUNTRY-RIGHT OF PROOF.

Re Hilckes (1917) 1 K.B. 48. This was a bankruptcy proceeding. The bankrupt was indebted to a registered English Company, all of the directors of which were English, and the bulk of the capital thereof was held by British subjects, though a considerable number of shares were held by Germans. After the war began, the bankrupt, who was a German, was interned in England, and was adjudicated a bankrupt; the company carried on its business in a rubber plantation situate in what, at the beginning of the war, was a German colony, and the question was whether in such circumstances the company was entitled to prove its claim against the bankrupt. Horridge, J., held that the company was at the time of the outbreak of the war carrying on business in an enemy country, and therefore, according to the sixth proposition of Lord Parker's summary of the law in Daimler Co. v. Continental Tyre & Rubber Co. (1916) 2 A.C. 307, 346, must be regarded as an alien enemy; but the Court of Appeal (Lord Cozens-Hardy, M.R., and Warrington, and Scrutton, L.JJ.) held that the mere fact that a British company did business up to the time of the outbreak of the war in an enemy country, through a properly appointed agent, did not constitute the com

pany an alien enemy, and, therefore, that it was entitled to prove its claim.

SHIP-BILL OF LADING-EXCEPTIONS-GENERAL SHIP--LOADING AT DIFFERENT PORTS-RIGHT TO RE-STOW CARGO-DAMAGE

OCCASIONED IN COURSE OF RE-STOWING.

Bruce Marriott Co. v. Houlder Line (1917) 1 K.B. 72. This was an action by owners of a part of a cargo, for damages occasioned thereto in the following circumstances. The cargo in question was shipped on a general ship which carried cargo for various ports. She took on part of her cargo at Antwerp, and then proceeded to London, and took on the plaintiff's cargo. The bill of lading therefor excepted, inter alia, damages arising from breakage. The vessel then proceeded to Newport to take on more cargo. It was found necessary for the safe voyage of the ship that two large cylinders of the plaintiff's cargo should be taken out of the hold where they have been placed, and restowed in another hold. For this purpose they were temporarily placed on the quay, and while there were damaged. The evidence shewed that this method of dealing with the cargo in case of a general ship was quite usual. Rowlatt, J., who tried the case, thought that the defendants were not entitled to take the cylinders out of the hold for the purpose of re-stowing them, therefore, that the defendants were not protected by the exception in the bill of lading; but the Court of Appeal (Eady, and Bankes, L.JJ., and Lawrence, J.) unanimously reversed his decision, and the action was dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW-HIGH TREASON-AIDING THE KING'S ENEMIESADHERENCE WITHOUT THE REALM-TREASON ACT, 1351 (25 EDW. 3, STAT. 5, c. 2).

The King v. Casement (1916) 1 K.B. 98. This will probably hereafter constitute one of the leading cases on the subject of high treason. The accused was indicted under the Treason Act of 1351. His alleged offence being, that being a British subject he had gone to Germany in time of war, and there endeavoured to induce certain subjects of His Majesty, there prisoners of war, to join the armed forces of the enemy. It was contended that this act having been committed out of the realm was not treason within the Act, and not triable in England, but the King's Bench Division (Lord Reading, C.J., and Avory, and Horridge, JJ.) and the Court of Criminal Appeal (Darling, Bray, Lawrence, Scrutton, and Atkin, JJ.) unanimously agreed that the offence

was within the Act, and triable in England; and that the acts of which the accused had been guilty, were an adherence to the King's enemies, and also a giving aid and comfort to them.

CONTRACT

CONDITION SUSPENSION OF DELIVERY-PREVENTING OR HINDERING DELIVERY-WAR-SHORTAGE OF SUPPLY RISE IN PRICE.

This was an action

Wilson v. Tennants (1917) 1 K.B. 208. to enforce a contract for the supply of magnesium chloride. The contract was subject to a condition that deliveries might be suspended pending any contingencies beyond the control of the sellers or buyers (such as war), causing a short supply of labour, fuel, raw material, or manufactured produce, or otherwise preventing or hindering the manufacture, or delivery of the article. Owing to the war there was a shortage of supply, and the price rose, and the defendants claimed under the clause above mentioned a right to suspend deliveries during the war. Low, J., who tried the action, gave effect to this contention, but the Court of Appeal (Lord Cozens-Hardy, M.R., and Pickford, L.J., and Neville, J., the latter dissenting), held that the mere shortage of supply, which did not in fact prevent or hinder the delivery of the goods, was not within the condition, and that the condition referred to a physical, or legal prevention, and not to an economic unprofitableness, arising from a rise in price.

LANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASE UNDER SEAL-OVERHOLDING TENANT LIABILITY OF TENANT OVERHOLDING-RIGHT OF

LESSOR TO SUE OVERHOLDING TENANT ON EXPRESS COVENANTS

IN LEASE CONVEYANCING ACT, 1881 (44-45 VICT. C. 41) s. 10-(R.S.O. c. 155, s. 5).

Blane v. Francis (1917) 1 K.B. 252. This was an action by an assignee of the reversion against an overholding tenant for breach of a covenant to repair. The covenant was contained in the lease under which the lessee had entered. It was contended that under the Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 10 (see R.S.O. e. 155, s. 5) the tenant, notwithstanding the lease had expired, still remained liable under the covenants in the lease, and that the plaintiff, as assignee of the reversion, was entitled to recover for the breach thereof; but the Court of Appeal (Eady, and Bankes, L.JJ., and Lawrence, J.), agreed with the Divisional Court that the Act did not apply to a lease not in writing, and that the plaintiff, as assignee of the reversion, was not entitled

to sue the overholding tenant for breaches of an express covenant in the expired lease, nor could he demand that the tenant should execute a lease so as to enable him to sue upon that covenant. The action therefore failed. It should be noted that the defendant paid into Court a sum sufficient to satisfy the breach of her implied covenant to keep the premises wind and water tight, which was accepted by the plaintiff as sufficient.

PRIZE COURT-NEUTRAL VESSELS- -CONTRABAND CARGOES-SHIPOWNER'S CLAIM TO FREIGHT.

The Jeanne (1917) P. 8. The simple point decided by Evans, P.P.D., in this case is, that the owners of neutral vessels carrying contraband cargoes which have been taken in prize and condemned, have no claim which will be recognised in the Prize Court for freight in respect of such cargoes except as a matter of grace or discretion.

SALVAGE FREIGHT SUBSEQUENTLY EARNED ADDED TO VALUE of SALVED VESSEL.

The Kaffir Prince (1917) P. 26. This was a claim for salvage. The vessel salved was on her way in ballast to an English port under a charter party to take a cargo of coal to Alexandria. By reason of being salved she was enabled to earn the freight for carriage of the coal, and Evans, P.P.D., held that the freight thus earned must be added to the value of the ship, for the purpose of computing the amount to be paid for salvage.

PRIZE COURT-PASSING OF PROPERTY IN TIME OF WAR-GOODS SENT BY PARCELS POST FROM ENEMY COUNTRY-SEIZURE UNDER REPRISALS ORDER IN COUNCIL OF MARCH 11, 1915. The United States (1917) P. 30. This was a proceeding in the Prize Court in respect of certain parcels seized on board the ship the United States under the above-mentioned Order in Council. The vessel was a neutral Dutch vessel: and the parcels in question contained goods made in Germany, and intended. for customers in America; the goods having been bought and paid for, before the passing of the Order in Council. It was contended on behalf of the purchasers that the goods when seized were neutral goods, as the property in them passed to the purchasers when the goods left the German factories, from which they were sent. Evans, P.P.D., held that in time of war goods shipped from an enemy country to a reutral country, or from a neutral

to an enemy country, are, when captured, to be regarded as enemy property, and that they, or their proceeds if sold, must be detained till the conclusion of peace.

PRIZE COURT-COMMERCIAL DOMICILGOODS OF ENEMY FIRM IN NEUTRAL COUNTRY-ENEMY PARTNERS-No PARTNER RESIDENT IN NEUTRAL COUNTRY-ENEMY PROPERTY.

The Hypatia (1917) P. 36. This is another case of prize. Goods belonging to a German firm carrying on business in Buenos Aires were shipped before the war on a British ship for carriage to Hamburg. None of the members of the firm was domiciled in Buenos Aires, or any other neutral country. The cargo was seized as prize, and this was a suit for its condemnation. Evans, P.P.D., held that although a subject of a belligerent State may acquire a domicil in a neutral State which will protect his goods captured at sea from condemnation as prize, residence in the neutral State is essential, and that a mere commercial domicil, unaccompanied by actual residence, will not suffice, therefore the goods in question were condemned.

PRIZE COURT "Goods" or "COMMODITIES"-GERMAN GOVERNMENT BONDS SEIZURE FROM LETTER MAIL-REPRISALS ORDER IN COUNCIL OF MARCH 11, 1915.

The Frederik VIII. (1917) P. 43. In this case some German Government Bonds sent by a bank in Berlin to Copenhagen to be transmitted to a bank in Chicago, were sent by letter mail from Copenhagen to Chicago, and were captured at sea in course of transmission. The simple question was whether the bonds were "goods" or "commodities" within the Order in Council above referred to, and Evans, P.P.D., held that they were.

WILL-CONSTRUCTION-GIFT TO NEPHEWS AND NIECES AND THEIR

CHILDREN INCLUSION OF CHILDREN OF ILLEGITIMATE SISTER.

In re Helliwell, Pickles v. Helliwell (1916) 2 Ch. 580. The question in this case was whether certain illegitimate relatives of a testator were included with legitimate relatives in a gift of residuary estate. The gift in question was in favour of the testator's nephews and nieces, and the issue of such of them as were dead, and was followed by a declaration that John Feather, son of "my sister Mary Wright" and William Hey the "son' of my brother John Helliwell, shall be entitled to share equally with my other nephews and nieces. His sister Mary Wright was