Anlage G ß[ 



B. General average or excess freight or time chartered freight during 

 detention? 



We think this sbould be divided as between 



a) General Average 



b) Excess Freight payable owing to terms of charter. We think 

 Underwriters would be liable (a) but not for (b). 



4. If the goods should be discharged after capture. 



a) The risk of such discharge and storage subsequent thereon? 



b) Any charges arising therefrom? 



We think Underwriters would be liable for both (a) and (b). 



5. The cost of defending the action in a Prize Court. 

 We think Underwriters would be liable for this. 



Yours faithfully 



HOGG & HEATH. 



Case V. 



Goods are shipped from by the to 



on a bill of lading, as enclosed herewith. 



Reaching the far East the master considered it not safe to deliver the 

 cargo at its destination in consequence of the Russian/Japanese war and 

 discharged the cargo under power as per clause 9 in the bill of lading at 

 Tsingtau. 



The goods are insured F. P. A. and with average under the usual Lloyds 

 policy, containing the usual clauses, incl. deviation, liberties as per bill of 

 lading, and 



"Warranted free of capture, seizure and detention and the consequences 

 thereof or any attempt thereat and also from all consequences of hostilities 

 or warlike Operations, whether before or after declaration of war." 



Questions. 



1. Are the insurers of the above described policy liable: 



a) for all losses or damages, except vice proper, which may happen to 

 the interest insured during such delay, arrising from fear of war, and 

 for the risk of forwarding the goods to their original destination? 



b) for all extra charges arrising from such storage and the forwarding? 



2. If the insurers are liable for all the above risks or part of same, have 

 they a right for an additional premium? 



If they have no right to enforce the payment of an additional 

 premium, is it usual to grant same? 



3. If the goods had been insured under a policy containing no F. C. S. 

 clause would the position of the assured be altered as regards the 

 question under 1 and 2? 



