Page images

(2.) The names, surnames, and addresses of the insurer

and assured. (3.) A declaration of the capacity in which the assured

contracts, whether for his own account or on behalf

of another person. In the latter case, the name, surname, and address of

the person on whose behalf the insurance is made. (4.) The name, port, flag, and register of the ship

insured, or of that which carries the insured

goods. (5.) The name, surname, and residence of the captain. (6.) The port or roadstead in which the insured goods

are, or ought, to be shipped. (7.) The port for which the ship has sailed or is to sail. (8.) The ports or roadsteads in which the ship is to load

and discharge, or at which she is to call for any

reason. (9.) The description and quality of the things insured. (10.) The number of parcels or bulk of any sort, and

their marks, if any. (11.) The period when the risk commences and ends. (12.) The sum assured. (13.) The premium agreed on for the insurance and the

place, time, and form of its payment. (14.) The portion of the premium belonging to the out

ward and homeward voyages respectively, if the

insurance is on a round voyage. (15.) The obligation the insurer is under to pay for

damage sustained by the property insured. (16.) The place, time, and manner in which payment is

to be made. F. 332, H. 236, 592, I. 420, 605, P. 595, 596, Sw. 204. E. 174. M. and P. 444, Macl. 231, 233.

739. Contracts and Policies of Insurance authorised by Consular Agents in foreign ports, where the contracting

parties or any of them are?Spaniards, are of equal validity as if they had been verified by a broker.

740. Ship and cargo may be included in one and the same contract or policy, the value of each article being stated, and the amount insured on each distinguished, otherwise the insurance will be void.

So also, different premiums may be agreed on for each article insured.

Several insurers may underwrite the same policy. B. Bk. II., 168, F. 334, 335, G. 782, 783, H. 593, I. 606, P. 597, R. 1234, Sw. 186, 187. E. 175-177.

741. In insurances on goods, the special description of them and of the ship carrying theni may be omitted when they are unknown to the assured.

If, in such a case, the ship sustains sea damage, the assured is bound to prove, not only the loss of the ship, but also that it sailed from its port of loading, that the goods lost were loaded on his account, and what was their value, before he can claim the insurance.

F. 337, H. 595, 596, Sw. 215. E. 180.

742. Policies of Insurance may be drawn “to order” of the assured, in which case they may be endorsed (i.e., the benefits of them may be transferred by endorsement).

Arn. 234.





The Castioni Extradition Case. THI THE ephemeral “revolution” in the Canton of Ticino

resulted in at least one tragedy, which has given rise to an exceedingly important decision on the Law of Extradition. The circumstances of Castioni's case (1891, Q.B. I, p. 149) are of too recent occurrence to require any detailed account, but it might be well to mention here the two really important points decided by the Court on the application for a Habeas Corpus. They are these :

(1.) That the question whether an offence is of "a political character,” is a “mixed question of law and fact” (Denman, J., In re Castioni, 1891, Q.B. I, p. 157), and must therefore to a great extent be determined by the facts of each particular case. The most satisfactory definition of a “political crime," is a crime "incidental to and forming part of political disturbances” (see ibid., Hawkins, J., at p. 166-approving Sir James F. Stephen, History of Criminal Law, II., pp. 70, 71).

(2.) That notwithstanding some apparently contrary dicta in the well-known cases of Ex parte Huguet, 29 L.T. N.S. 41, and R. v. Maurer, 10 Q.B.D. 513, the Court has jurisdiction under the Extradition Act, 1870, upon an application for Habeas Corpus to review the decision of the magistrate as to the political nature of the offence (see, especially on this point, Denman, J., at p. 157, and Hawkins, J., at p. 164).

The Behring Sea Question. The modest hope expressed by President Harrison in his last Message to Congress, that “Some arrangement will



be arrived at assuring to the U.S. the property right in the Behring Sea,” has not yet been fulfilled. Indeed, the Christmas “Truce of God” had scarcely come at an end, before most bellicose rumours were set afloat as to naval preparations being made by both the disputants in view of the forthcoming sealing season. Mr. Blaine's latest attempt at vindicating the U.S. claims, is rather like the prelude to a retreat from his original position.* He practically denies that he ever expressly. claimed the Behring Sea as a mare clausum, and further suggests in a vague way, that the U.S. would consent to arbitration, if only he could draw up the terms of the submission and the statement of facts. This ex parte sort of arbitration does not appear to have found favour with Lord Salisbury. Meanwhile the Canadian Minister of Justice has carried the war into the enemy's camp by a rather sensational coup. He has applied to the Supreme Court of the United States for a Writ of Prohibition against the Alaskan District Court in the matter of the seizure, fifty-nine miles from land, and condemnation of the Canadian vessel, the W. P. Sayward. The Supreme Court, contrary to general expectation, decided against the preliminary objection, and held that it had jurisdiction to hear the application.t The whole case will now be considered upon the merits, the Diplomatic negotiations being thus supplemented by an appeal to the U.S. Municipal Law as to the validity of the recent seizures. It is dangerous to trust too much to newspaper reports, but a very extraordinary argument is attributed to the U.S. Attorney-General to the effect that there is a right by International Law to follow and seize on the High Seas a vessel which has violated Municipal Law in Territorial waters. This is almost as amusing as the dictum attributed to Mr. Blaine, that seals born on the Alaskan

* Sec Times, 6th January, 1891.

+ Times, 3rd February, 1891.

Islands are so far U.S. property, that they can be followed for their protection even outside the limits of territoriality.

The Loutsky Affair. The arrest of Vladimir Loutsky by Russian agents in Turkish territory, is a inatter of more than a humanitarian interest. Loutsky, it seems, though of Russian birth, had been for twelve years engaged in the Bulgarian Public Works Department. Induced by false telegrams to go to Constantinople, he was virtually kidnapped at the station of Serkedji-Skelesi, and forcibly carried off in a steamer as prisoner to Russia. Even assuming that Loutsky was not a mere political suspect (as seems to have been the case), but a true “common law criminal," as the Turkish Government described him, the affair, from an International Law point of view, can only be regarded as a flagrant outrage.

Of course, if the Porte chooses to acquiesce in such a violation of its territorial rights (as the official statement to the effect that “The Turkish Government and Court had no cause to interfere,” seems to suggest), practically nothing further can be done in the matter.

It is worthy of note, however, that the Continental Press, as well as our own, has evinced great and justfiable indignation on the subject.*


The Blockade Question in Chili. The revolution in Chili has given rise to one question of general interest, viz., the validity of the blockade of Valparaiso by the “rebel” fleet. There is at present a lack of information as to the exact nature and extent of the

* See daily papers, 22nd January, and for a full (though ex parte) account, see Free Russia for February, 1891.

« PreviousContinue »