46 Anlage A 



Whether in the policies in the form „A" and in the form ,,B" assuming 

 that their construction is governed by English law — they are liable for any 

 and if so which of the various items of expense and loss on the part of the 

 assured above mentioned and referred to under the numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4. 



21, Cornhill E C, 27 th May 98. James Ballantyne. 



Case I. 

 Opinion. 



The questions raised in this case are of great difficulty and importance 

 to underwriters, and are almost destitute of authority. 



The ship appears to have proceeded to Hongkong under the liberty in 

 her bill of lading, nothing would have happened to her or her cargo unless 

 a blockade was in existence, but no doubt the state of things gave reasonable 

 apprehension of a blockade. The steps taken appear therefor to have been 

 precautions to avert perils insured against but not immediatly imminent 

 in their Operation. The liability of the ship appears to have terminated 

 vvhen she discharged at Hongkong. 



There seem to me only two ways of putting the case of the assured. 



1. That the loss is by consequence of hostilities. 



2. That there is a general average contribution due in consequence of 

 action taken to avoid perils insured against. 



As to the first claim, the only authority on the words in question that 

 I am awareof is Jonides v. The Universal Marine Insurance 14C.B. 

 N. S. 259 where a ship's running on a cape whose lighthouse had been 

 destroyed by belligerents was held not a consequence of hostilities, and 

 the principle of construction there laid down was that the consequence 

 causing the loss must be the immediate cause of the loss (see at 

 pp. 385, 289). Applying this test to the best of my ability I do not think 

 that any of the f our classes of loss mentioned in the caseare the immediate 

 consequence of hostilities. The only one about which I have any doubt is 

 the first, and I do not think the expense of discharging cargo, which 

 must take place somewhere, is a loss consequent upon hostilities. It 

 seems to me that a claim for general average contribution might 

 have more chance of success, though in m}^ view this could only 

 apply to the expenses of putting into port and discharging, and could 

 not apply after the interests were severed. The freight due at Manila 

 appears to be the principal thing sacrificed, but I do not understand 

 put forward on that basis. 1 think however that any claim has 

 been that even a general average claim is so doubtful that it should 

 be resisted by underwriters, if made. In my opinion therefor the 

 underwriters are justified in resisting the claims put forward. 



3 Temple Gardens, June 2. 98. T. E. Scruttou. 



