« ПретходнаНастави »
demned by a competent court, the property in her vests in the captors, and relates back to the date of the capture.
Hence an assignment of it in the interim will be valid; and the assignee will have a good title to it (e).
$ 16. Condemna- A vessel carried after its capture into a neutral port, tion and seizure by
cannot, while it remains there, be validly condemned by a neutrals, &c. court sitting in the country of the captors (f).
Again, a minister or consul of the capturing power, accredited to the neutral country to which the prize has been taken, cannot legally condemn it.
But if the state to which the prize is taken be in alliance with the captors, a valid sentence of condemnation can be passed, either in that state by a consul of the capturing power, or in the territory of the captors (9).
Of course, condemnation by a competent court, sitting in the territory of the captors or of a co-belligerent (h), of a vessel captured from an enemy, and taken to a port in the country of the captors, is valid.
Vessels found guilty of infringements of the Slave Trade Acts (i), or the Customs Acts, will become liable to forfeiture (k). But if a ship be seized as a slave vessel, without reasonable and probable cause, she will not merely be ordered to be restored, but damages for the seizure and detention and costs will be allowed (1).
The seizure and sale of a vessel by a neutral state is of
(e) Stevens v. Bagwell, 15 Ves. 139; Alexander v. Duke of Wel. lington, 2 Russell & M. 35.
(f) The Henrick and Maria, 4 Rob. A. R. 43; The Flad Oyen, 1 Rob. A. R. 135; Oddy v. Bovill, 2 East, 473; Havelock v. Rockwood, 8 T. R. 268; The Kierlighett, 3 Rob. 96; see “Cases" at end of
209; Oddy v. Bovill, 2 East, 473;
" Cases” at end of this g. (h) The Christopher, 2 Rob. A. R. 209.
(i) 36 & 37. Vict. c. 88; The Laura, 3 Moore, P. C., N. S. 181; The Newport, Swa. 317; The Levin Lank, Swa. 45.
(K) 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36, ss. 172— 206.
() The Ricardo Schmidt, L. R., 1 P. C. 268.
(9) The Flad Oyen, 1 Rob. A. R. 135; The Christopher, 2 Rob. A. R.
course illegal. Therefore no property in the vessel will pass to the purchaser, but she will remain the property of the person who owned her at the date of the capture (m).
So a capture by pirates will not deprive the owner of his property in the vessel or goods captured (n).
CASES. 1. A British vessel was captured by a Dutch privateer, and carried into Norway, a neutral state, and there sold under a sentence of condemnation passed at the Hague. Held, that such condemnation was invalid (o).
2. An English ship, captured by a French privateer, was taken to Bergen, a neutral port, and condemned there by the French consul and sold. The condemnation was held invalid (p).
3. A British ship, captured by a French privateer, and carried into a port of Spain, then an ally of France, was while lying there condemned in France. The sentence of condemnation was held valid (9)
$ 17. A vessel captured by pirates, plunderers, &c., may be Ransom. ransomed in all cases.
With regard to British ships captured by an enemy, the sovereign in council can make orders, either prohibiting or allowing their ransom. And any person ransoming or agreeing to ransom any ship or goods in contravention of such orders will become liable to be fined by an Admiralty Court in an amount not exceeding 5001. (-).
(m) Wilson v. Forster, 6 Taunt. 25.
(n) Grotius de Jure Belli et Pacis, III. c. 9, s. 16; Abbott, Shipping, Pt. I. Ch. I. s. 3; Att.-Gen. for Hong Kong v. Kuok-a-Sing, L. R., 5 P. C. 179.
(i) The Henrick and Maria, 4 Rob. A. R. 43.
(P) The Flad Oyen, 1 Rob. A. R. 135.
(9) The Christopher, 2 Rob. A. R. 209.
(v) 27 & 28 Vict. c. 25 (The Prize Act, 1864).
Contents of agreements with seamen.
$ 18. Every master of a vessel, except a coasting vessel of under eighty tons, must enter into an agreement with every seaman he carries to sea from any port in the United Kingdom.
Such agreement (which is otherwise termed the ship's articles) must contain:
(1) The nature and duration (if possible) of the intended voyage or engagement. However, instead of stating the nature and duration intended, the agreement may state the maximum period of the intended voyage or engagement, and the places, if any, to which it is not to extend (a).
The court will place a reasonable construction on the terms of a contract entered into by a seaman, and will not allow an unreasonable advantage to be taken of his having signed the agreement (6).
(2) The number and description of the crew;
of each seaman; (6) A scale of the provisions which are to be allowed to each seaman (c);
(7) A statement as to difference between the statutory load line and the lines of the ship's decks (d);
(8) Any regulations as to conduct on board, and as to
(a) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 7.
(6) The Minerva, 1 Hagg. 347; Frazer v. Hutton, 2 C. B., N. S. 512; see “ Cases” at end of this $.
(e) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 149; see 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 8, as to agreements with fishermen.
(d) 39 & 40 Vict. c. 80, s. 26.
fines, and other punishments for misconduct which have been sanctioned by the Board of Trade (e).
The particulars required to be inserted in the agreement must be definitely and concisely stated.
CASES. 1. An engagement of a seaman for a voyage from Liverpool to west coast of Africa and back, or for a term not to exceed three years, was held reasonable and valid (f).
2. A seaman was engaged for a voyage, described in his contract to be “from London to New South Wales and India, or elsewhere, and to return to a port in Europe.” Held, that the effect of the words “ or elsewhere ”must be limited, and receive a reasonable construction; and, also, that the seaman could not be made to go to remote parts of the world (9).
$ 19. In the case of foreign-going ships, every agreement Before whom made in the United Kingdom must be signed by each to be made. seaman before a shipping master, who must ascertain that the seaman understands it, and must attest the document (h).
However, running agreements extending over two or more voyages may be entered into with the crew, on certain terms being complied with, in the case of foreigngoing ships making voyages averaging less than six months in duration (i).
In the case of home-trade ships, crews or individual seamen may be engaged before a shipping master, as in the case of foreign-going ships. If they are not so engaged, the master must explain the agreement to them as soon as possible ; and the seaman must then sign it before a witness, who must attest his signature (j).
When several home-trade vessels belong to the same owner,
(9) The Minerva, 1 Hagg. 347; see judgment of Lord Stowell,
(e) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 149; see 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, 8. 8, as to agreements with fishermen.
(f) Frayer v. Hatton, 2 C. B., N S. 512.
(h) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 150.
he may make the agreement with the seamen, instead of the master, and may engage the seamen to serve in any of his ships, provided the names of the ships and the nature of the service are specified in the agreement (k).
Seamen engaged in any colony for a British ship must be engaged before a shipping master, or, if none, before an officer of customs ().
Seamen engaged for a British ship in a foreign port must be engaged with the sanction of and before the British consul, if there be one at that port (m).
Who can engage seamen or apprentices.
$ 20. A seaman or apprentice to be entered on board any ship in the United Kingdom can be engaged only by the owner, master, or mate of the ship, or some servant of the owner, or a shipping master, or some person licensed by the Board of Trade. Should any other person engage a seaman or apprentice, he will incur a penalty of 201. (n).
A person who has bonâ fide contracted to purchase a share in a ship, will be deemed an owner within the rule ().
The same penalty is imposed not only on persons who employ unlicensed persons to engage seamen or apprentices, but also on those who receive seamen or apprentices so engaged (p).
CASE. A., who had bona fide contracted to purchase one sixty-fourth share in a British ship from B., engaged an apprentice for the ship. B. was not registered as owner, but he had the full possession and control of the ship, under a contract to purchase the sixty-fourth share. Held, that A. was an "owner” within the meaning of the statute (9).
(k) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 156.
D. 160; 50 L. J., Q. B. 567; 45
(p) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 147, subss. 2, 3.
() Hughes v. Sutherland, sup.