« PreviousContinue »
any news of the vessel. In such case he can claim the insurance money from the insurer, without being obliged to prove the loss, but he must prove the absence of news with a certificate from the Consul or Maritime authority of the port from which the vessel sailed, and another from the Consuls or Maritime authorities of the port to which the ship was bound and to which she belongs, which shew that she has not been at those places during the period.
For this proceeding, the same period will be allowed as laid down in Art. 804, voyages being considered "short” which are to the coasts of Europe, and Asia, and Africa on the Mediterranean, and with respect to America those to ports between the Rivers Plate and St. Lawrence, and to the islands lying between the coasts of Spain and the places mentioned in this Article.
B. Bk. II., 207, F. 375 (1862), G. 865, 866, H. 667, I. 633, P. 617, R. 1247, Sw. 260. Arn. 745-747 diff.
799. In the case of time policies, there is a legal presumption that the loss happened within the time covered by the policy, unless the insurer can prove that it happened after his liability had ceased. B. Bk. II., 208, F. 376, H. 674, I. 633, P. 617, Sw. 267 diff. Arn. 745–747, and see 25 & 26 Vict., c. 63, sec. 21 (2).
800. The assured, at the time of abandoning, must declare all insurances effected on the things that are abandoned as well as all bottomry bonds on the same, and until he has made this declaration, the time during which he ought to be paid his insurance does not begin to run.
If he makes a fraudulent declaration, he will forfeit all rights under the insurance, but will be liable for bonds borrowed on the things insured, notwithstanding their loss. B. Bk. II., 211, 212, F. 379, 380, G. 873, H. 675, I. 638, P. 621, S. 266.
801. If the vessel is taken as prize, and there is not time for the assured to concert plans with the insurer not to wait his instructions, he may on his own account, or if he
is not present the captain may, take steps to recover the things insured, giving notice to the insurer as soon as possible.
This latter may adopt an agreement made by the assured or the captain, or not, on giving notice of his resolution within 24 hours of receiving notice of the agreement.
If he adopts it he must forward at once the sum agreed on for ransom, and the further risks of the voyage remain on his account in comformity with the terms of the policy. If he does not adopt it, he will pay the sum insured, losing all claim to the ransomed goods, and if he does not state what his intention is within the prescribed time, he is deemed to have refused the agreement.
B. Bk. II., 221, F. 395, 396, I. 641, B. 925.
802. If the vessel is recaptured, and the assured restored to the possession of his property, all expenses and losses caused by the capture are considered as Average losses and made good by the insurer, and if in consequence of the re-capture the goods insured pass into the possession of a third party, the assured may avail himself of the right to abandon.
H. 679, P. 625.
803. When an abandonment is accepted or declared to be lawful, the property in the things abandoned, with all advantages or deteriorations that have accrued to them subsequent to the abandonment, pass to the insurer, and the fact that a vessel lawfully abandoned is repaired does not exonerate him from payment.
B. Bk. II., 216, F. 385, G. 875, H. 678, 679, I. 640, P. 623.
804. Abandonment is not allowed :(1.) If the loss happened before the voyage commenced. (2.) If it is partial or conditional, without including in it
all the things insured.
(3.) If the intention of making it is not announced to the
insurers within the four months next following the day on which the assured has received news of the loss, and if the abandonment is not definitely made within ten months similarly reckoned when the disaster has happened in European, and Asiatic, and African Mediterranean ports, and in those of America, between the Rivers Plate and St. Lawrence, and within eighteen months with respect to other
places. (4.) If it is not made by the owner himself, or some
person specially authorised by him, or by the broker
who made the insurance. (1.) B. Bk. II., 200, F. 370, P. 622.
(2.) B. Bk. II., 202, F. 372, G. 870, H. 677, I. 639, P. 622, Sw. 264 Arn. 954-956.
(3.) B. Bk. II., 203, F. 373, G. 868, H. 672, I. 637, 638, P. 620, Sw, 262. Arn. 960. (4.) Arn. 956.
805. In case of abandonment the insured must pay the sum insured within the time specified in the policy, and if no time is specified therein within sixty days after the abandonment is accepted or the declaration mentioned in Art. 803 is made.
B. Bk. II., 213 diff., F. 382 diff., H. 680, I. 631, R. 1247, 1248, 1265, Sw. 269.
F. W. RAIKES.
Naturalisation in Australia: The Case of Chong Quork,
Side by side with the tendency to Federation in our Colonies at the Antipodes, there seems to exist a spirit which in the German Empire is known as Particularism.
This spirit has been remarkably exemplified in a recent case arising in New South Wales, on the point of the extent of the Naturalisation conferred by one of the Australian Colonies. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that the question should have arisen in regard to a former subject of the Celestial Empire, as the decision of the Premier of New South Wales may have been unconsciously affected by that dislike to Chinese immigrants, which is not confined to our Colonies, but exists in equal vigour in the United States. The facts, however, are simple, and we presume that the decision in the case of Chong Quork must, until reversed, govern all other cases of Naturalisation in Australia. How so Particularist a decision as that Queensland Naturalisation Papers are useless in New South Wales can be reconciled with the Federation of the Australasian Colonies into the self-styled “Commonwealth" of Australasia, we find it difficult to understand. Chong Quork had been naturalised in Queensland, had resided there for several years, had paid his Queensland poll-tax, and assumed, very naturally as it appears to us, that he could remove to any other Australian, or, we should submit, any other British Colony, as a naturalised British subject. But, on arriving in Sydney Harbour, on a steamer from Brisbane, the New South Wales Customs Authorities refused to allow Chong Quork to land, though his wife, who was herself a British subject, and his children, might land, it was
admitted. It would seem, from the brief account of his case in the Morning Post for Iith March, 1891, that the New South Wales Customs Authorities would have allowed Chong Quork to land on payment of a fresh amount of £100 as the Local Government Poll Tax. But to pay this would obviously have been yielding the whole point, as to the extent of the Naturalisation conferred by the Government of the Colony of Queensland.
We are ourselves unable to understand, on Constitutional principles, how one Colony can be entitled to refuse validity to the Naturalisation conferred by another. If the Colony of Queensland was a Sovereign, or even semi-Sovereign State, we could understand the contention of Sir Henry Parkes. Or, if it were a State of a Union, such as the United States, we could understand that there might be two Citizenships, and that the Federal Citizenship might not import Citizenship of the several States of the Union. Or, even if the Federation of the “Commonwealth of Australasia ” were an accomplished fact, which it is not, we could imagine that the Federal Constitution might contain some such limitations on Naturalisation. At the same time we should prima facie suppose that Naturalisation by the Government of one member of the Federated Commonwealth would import Naturalisation throughout its length and breadth. In the present condition of things, however, we fail to understand what Naturalisation the Government of any British Colony, whether Queensland or New South Wales, can confer save British Naturalisation, and we should submit, as Chong Quork evidently did submit, that such Naturalisation, if valid in itself, in accordance with the powers of the Colonial Government purporting to confer it, not only would be, but must be, valid throughout the United Kingdom and all the Colonies and Dependencies thereof. It is to be hoped, for the sake of the definition of true Constitutional Principles at the