tons net register), registered at Trieste. On August 1, 1914, the Concadoro left the port of Cardiff under charter to Messrs. D. L. Flack and Son, with a cargo of patent fuel destined for consignees at Port Sudan. She arrived at Port Said on August 18, 1914, her master being ignorant that war had broken out between Great Britain and Austria-Hungary. Owing to the outbreak of war, the master was not provided by the managing owner with funds to enable him to continue his voyage, and decided to remain at Port Said, fearing to put to sea lest he should be captured by British men-of-war. The master says that he believed Port Said to be a neutral port. Their lordships have already found that Port Said was not at this date in fact a neutral port, and that, under the Suez Convention, the ships of belligerents had no right to make it a port of refuge (The Gutenfels, 32 The Times L. R., 433).1 It is only because Port Said has at the said date to be regarded as an enemy, and not a neutral, port, that the appellants are able to found their case on the application of Articles 1 and 2 of the Hague Convention No. 6 of 1907, assuming for the purposes of the appeal that the Hague Convention applies, as their lordships have done in other appeals from the Egyptian court. Immediately on arrival the Concadoro came under the general precautionary order issued by the General Officer Commanding British troops, that no enemy vessel was to enter the canal. The Concadoro was free to return to the Mediterranean. On September 22, 1914, the master of the Concadoro was offered a safe-conduct to Port Sudan, and thence to Basra, on the terms comprised in the following: Sir, I am instructed to inform you as follows: The coal cargo of the Concadoro being required at Port Sudan, you are requested to proceed to that port and discharge it to the consignees' order. If you will agree to do so, the Egyptian Government is authorized by the British Foreign Office to grant you a safe-conduct to the said port, and from thence to the port of Basra, a neutral port, on the following conditions: 1. The Concadoro must leave Port Said on or before September 27, and must proceed direct to Port Sudan, arriving there not later than six days from date of departure from Port Said. 2. She must discharge without delay the 1,900 tons of patent fuel to the consignees, Messrs. Contomichalos, Darke, and Co., and 48 hours after completion must leave Port Sudan for the neutral port named above. 3. The Concadoro will be liable to capture in the event of any infringement of the foregoing conditions. 1 Printed in this JOURNAL, p. 629. You are requested to give me a written answer to this letter as soon as possible, and, in the event of your acceptance of the conditions named, you will be good enough to apply to this office for the safe-conduct referred to, at the same time informing me of the date and time you propose to enter the canal. (Signed) On September 23 the master replied: C. E. D. TRELAWNEY, I beg to thank you for your letter of the 22nd, but in reply I regret to inform you that, on account of the present political situation, I cannot see my way to undertake the voyage to Port Sudan before the end of hostilities. I can only deliver the cargo here against original bill of lading and signature of bond with deposit for general average. Their lordships would not desire to place undue weight on this letter, but the claim of the master not to prosecute the voyage to Port Sudan before the end of hostilities in substance amounts to a claim to use Port Said as a port of refuge. It is material that at this date the master of the Concadoro had received an offer by the consignees of the cargo to advance the sum of £530 for the canal dues and disbursements at Port Said. On October 22 the Concadoro was taken out to sea, under instructions from the Director-General to the Port and Lights Administration of Egypt, and steered northwards towards a British destroyer which was lying outside the harbor. The vessel was boarded by officers and crew of the destroyer, brought back to the point from which she had started in the morning, and was then taken over by a crew from H. M. S. Warrior. The next day the Cancadoro, in charge of a crew from the Warrior, left Port Said for Port Sudan. The cargo was discharged at Port Sudan and the Concadoro was taken to Alexandria, where she arrived on November 17. The Concadoro was subsequently condemned as an enemy ship properly seized as prize, and this appeal is against the order for condemnation. On the hearing of the appeal two arguments were urged on behalf of the Concadoro as differentiating her case from that of the other appeals from his Britannic Majesty's Supreme Court of Egypt in Prize, which had come before their lordships. In the first place, it was argued that the words in Article 1 il est désirable qu'il lui soit permis de sortir librement, immédiatement ou après un délai de faveur suffisant, et de gagner directement, après avoir été muni d'un laissez-passer, son port de destination ou tel autre port qui lui sera désigné. entitled the master to receive a pass, and more than that a wholly unconditional pass, direct to the port of destination or any other port indicated, and that by reason of the conditions attached to the offer made on September 22, 1914, the safe conduct was not a proper pass within the meaning of Article 1. Their lordships agree with the view of Mr. Justice Grain, that the conditions attached in the circumstances were manifestly reasonable. The conditions were that the master of the Concadoro should discharge his cargo at the port to which it was consigned, arriving there after the allowance of a sufficient time for the voyage from Port Said; that she must discharge her cargo without delay, and that 48 hours after completion she must leave Port Sudan for Basra, a neutral port, to which the master had originally intended to proceed after discharging the cargo at Port Sudan. Their lordships hold that manifestly reasonable conditions do not invalidate a pass offered under Article 1. To adopt so narrow a construction of the article would, in their opinion, unduly restrict the benefits intended to be conferred for the protection of mercantile international operations undertaken in good faith and in process of being carried out before the outbreak of hostilities. In the second place, it was argued that the inability of the master to procure the necessary funds for his voyage brought the Concadoro under Article 2, and that she was unable to leave the enemy port within the days of grace "par suite de circonstances de force majeure." In their lordships' opinion this contention cannot be maintained. The force majeure contemplated in the article is one which renders the vessel unable to leave the port, and cannot be construed to include the circumstance that the master has not been provided by the owners with sufficient financial resources to continue his voyage. Moreover, in the present case the master of the Concadoro was offered a loan of £530, which was a sufficient sum to enable him to pay the charges at Port Said and of the Suez Canal and to take his vessel to Port Sudan. Their lordships are of opinion that the order appealed against was properly made, and will humbly advise his Majesty that the appeal be dismissed, with costs. The order should be varied, however, so as to run "and as such or otherwise subject and liable to confiscation and condemned the said ship as good and lawful prize seized on behalf of the Crown," and in other respects should be in the form under appeal. THE ALWINA British Prize Court Decided May 5, 1916 (The Times Law Reports, Vol. 32, p. 494) Where a neutral vessel with false papers has been engaged in carrying contraband intended to be delivered to enemy agents or enemy vessels of war, but that intention has been frustrated or abandoned and the goods have been sold and delivered to other buyers, the vessel if captured and seized as prize on the return voyage is not liable to confiscation. The facts are stated in the judgment. The President, in giving judgment, said: The S. S. Alwina is a neutral vessel of Rotterdam and the property of a Dutch company. She was seized at Falmouth. The claim of the Crown as it appears by the writ is that the ship should be condemned as prize on the ground or grounds that at the time of seizure she was on her return passage from taking a direct part in hostilities and supplying or attempting to supply coals to warships, or to the naval forces of the enemies of the Crown, or otherwise being in the employment of the enemies of the Crown in violation of the neutrality of the ship. Before considering and applying the law by which the case must be governed, it is essential to find the facts, and to determine the nature of the conduct of the vessel and her owner and master in relation to the voyage which it is alleged rendered her subject to seizure and confiscation on her return passage. She belonged to the Holland Gulf Stoomvaart Maatschappij, of Rotterdam. The managing directors were the firm of Jos. de Poorter, of Rotterdam, of which firm Jos. de Poorter, a Dutch subject, was the sole partner. De Poorter acted throughout as her owner; and he will hereinafter be so described and treated. The vessel was a steamship of a tonnage of 1,115 tons gross and 660 net. Her speed was 8-9 knots, with a consumption of fuel of about 9 tons a day. She carried a crew of about 17 hands. She was a cargo boat and had no accommodation for passengers. Until the outward voyage to be referred to, she had been employed in a western European trade chiefly between Holland, England and France. But suddenly, and without any previous negotiations of which the court has been given any information, on October 16, 1914, her owner entered into, or purported to enter into, a time charter with a firm described as Messrs. A. M. Delfino y Hermano, of Buenos Aires, at £700 per month, "to be employed in such lawful trades between any port or ports in the United Kingdom and/or Continent of Europe and America (not West) and back finally to a neutral and safe port of America (not West) or Europe as charterers or their agents shall direct." Apparently the charterparty was signed at Rotterdam. It was signed by De Poorter, and it was also subscribed with the name of the firm of Delfino y Hermanos, the charterers. By whom the name of the latter was signed is not known. There appears to be a firm of the name of A. M. Delfino y Hermanos who carry on business at Buenos Aires as shipping agents, and they have acted for (amongst other shipowners) the Hamburg South America, and the North German Lloyd Lines. But it may be stated at once that in the transactions relating to this vessel and her charter and voyages there is no trace in the evidence, except in name only, of any such firm, or of anything done by it, or any person representing it, from first to last. The charterparty was in evidence, and can be referred to. Under it (clause 3) the charterers were to provide and pay for coals, port charges, pilotages, loading and unloading expenses, &c. They were to pay for the hire in cash two-monthly in advance (clause 5). They had to furnish the master with all requisite instructions and sailing directions from time to time (clause 15). And they agreed to insure the steamer against all war risks for £17,000 (clause 22). The steamer left Rotterdam on October 19, bound for Newport (South Wales). On the same day de Poorter was apparently in this country. He bought a cargo of Welsh steam coal (about 1,500 tons) on that date from Messrs. Agius and Co., coal merchants, at Newport, to be shipped on the vessel f. o. b. In his answer to interrogatories, de Poorter deposed that payment for the coal was received from Delfino y Hermanos on or about the same day. This was a bare statement without any particulars. There was no evidence or trace of any such payment. On October 21 de Poorter made a declaration before a commissioner in London that he had made all necessary inquiries as to the ultimate destination of the coal shipped by him on the vessel, and that it was |