apportioned in accordance with the Law in force at the place where the cargo is delivered.

S. 731, H. 722, I. 658.

651. All successive General Averages are adjusted together at the end of the voyage, as if they were one and the same Average.

§1. The provision of this Article does not apply to goods received or discharged at a port of call, but the exception only affects those goods.

S. 850.

652. The adjustment and apportionment of General Average is carried out at the Commander's instigation, and, if he neglects it, at the instigation of the owners of the ship or cargo, without prejudice to the responsibility of the first named person.

§1. The Commander must produce all the ship's books and other papers relating to the disaster, the ship, or the cargo, with his report and proper protest.

B. 118, F. 414, G. 730, H. 724, 726, I. 658, S. 851, 852, Sc. 214.

653. No action for Average can be sustained against a charterer or consignee of cargo if the Commander has received the freight and delivered the cargo without protest, even if the freight has been paid in advance.

F. 435, G. 733, I. 659.

TITLE VI.

Putting into a Port of Refuge.

ART. 654. The following are good causes for putting into a port of refuge :

(1.) Provisions, water, or fuel running short.

(2.) A well-founded fear of enemies.

(3.) Any accident which renders the ship incapable of continuing her voyage.

S. 819.

See, however, Art. 657, post.

655. In any of the cases mentioned in the preceding Article, the Commander may, after consulting the principal members of the crew, and entering in the log and signing the resolution arrived at, put into port.

§1. Persons interested in the cargo laden on board may protest against the decision arrived at to put into a port of refuge.

§2. The Commander must, within 48 hours of his arrival at a port of refuge, make his report before the proper Authority.

I. 516-519, S. 819.

656. The expenses incurred by putting into a port of refuge are on account of the shipowner or charterer.

B. 103, I. 646, S. 821, Sc. 188 (7).

This appears to mean that the expenses are Particular Average on the person in whose interest the ship put into port.

657. Any putting into a port of refuge not caused by the fraud, neglect or default of the owner, commander or crew, is deemed to be legitimate.

658. When the putting into port is on account of the following reasons, it is deemed to be unlawful:

(1.) If the deficiency of provisions, water or fuel arises

from an insufficient original supply of them, or if they have been lost in consequence of bad stowage or negligence.

(2.) If the alleged fear of enemies has no justification in fact.

(3.) If the accident which disables the ship from pro-. ceeding on her voyage is caused by want of proper repairs, fittings and equipments, or by bad stowage, or is the consequence of erroneous arrangements or imprudence of the Commander.

S. 820. Se 190 (7)

659. In case of putting into a port of refuge for a legitimate reason, neither the owner nor the Commander is

answerable for damages which may accrue from it to shippers or cargo-owners.

§1. If there is no lawful cause, the Commander and owner will be jointly answerable up to the value of the ship and freight.

S. 821.

660. A discharge of cargo in a port of refuge will only be permitted when necessary for repairing the vessel or making good damage to the cargo. In such cases, when within the realm and its Colonial possessions, permission must be obtained from the proper Judge, and, when abroad, from the Consular officer, if there is one, and if there is none, then from the local Authority.

G. 504, S. 822.

661. The Commander is responsible for the custody and preservation of cargo when so discharged, unless occasioned by circumstances which are beyond control.

S. 823.

662. Damaged cargo will be conditioned or sold as circumstances may point out, by leave of the authorities named in Art. 660. The Commander is bound to prove to the shipper or consignee the regularity of the course he has taken, under pain of answering for the value of the property in good condition at its place of destination.

S. 824.

663. The Commander is answerable for damages caused by any unnecessary delay in a port of refuge, but if he is there on account of fear of enemy's vessels, his departure will be decided upon in council with the principal members of the crew and those interested in the cargo on board in the same way as a putting into port is decided upon.

I. 646 (7), S. 825.

F. W. RAIKES.

[*** *The Portuguese Code will be concluded in our next No.]

VI.-CURRENT NOTES ON INTERNATIONAL

LAW.

Public International Law.

The Declaration of Paris.

The fact that Japan is an accessory to the Declaration. and China not, served as the basis of a somewhat alarmist correspondence in the Times during October of last year. The matter was something of a mare's nest, and it is hardly necessary to deal seriously with Mr. Gibson Bowles' excursion into the "pastures new" of International Law. All that need be said is that the anonymous critic who replied to him in a series of very able letters, was, to a great extent, fighting the air.

Extradition Treaties.

There were several new Extradition Treaties entered into by Great Britain during the past year.* That with Liberia contained a list of 32 extraditable offences; that with Roumania 31, and that with Portugal 33. The last named contains a noteworthy proviso in Article 2 to the effect that "the Portuguese Government will not deliver up any person either guilty of or accused of any crime punishable with death."

International Arbitration.

The spirit of International Arbitration is certainly in the air, and the moral effect of the Behring Sea Reference will long be felt. Quite recently a Treaty has been entered into between our own country and Chili, to refer to arbitration all claims arising in the course of the late Civil War, for

* See Parliamentary Papers, 1894: Treaty Series, No. 2 (Argentina); No. 6 (Liberia); No. 7 (Portugal); and No. 14 (Roumania).

which the Chilian Government might be held responsible. The arbitrators are to be three in number, one to be appointed by the heads of each of the contracting States, and the third by such heads jointly, or in default of agreement, by the King of the Belgians.*

Private International Law.

Foreign Wills and Administrations.

In Canterbury v. Wyburn and Others and the Melbourne Hospital, 11 Rep., 89 (Jan.), the Privy Council approved of the well-known decision in Whicker v. Hume, 7 H.L.C. 124, and held that the Statutes of Mortmain are local in their application and do not affect wills of persons domiciled in the Colonies. In the case in question, a bequest by a Testator, domiciled in Victoria, of money to his Trustees for the purchase of land in England for a charitable object, was upheld. At the same time, it was held that “English "Law must decide whether English land can be bought "with money coming from such a source as a foreign will; "and that, if it decides in the negative, the bequest must "fail, not because it is illegal, but because it is impossible "of execution." This decision of the Privy Council distinguishes the case of Att.-Gen. v. Mill, 3 Russ. 328, and practically declares the inference drawn from that case by Mr. Westlake (Priv. Int. Law, §165) and Mr. Justice Story (Conflict of Laws, §446) to be unfounded and inaccurate. As to the general question of the applicability of the Mortmain Laws to Colonial Dependencies, reference should be made to the case of Jex v. McKinney, 14 App. Cas. 77.

In another recent case, In re the Goods of Brown-Séquard, 6 R. 31 (Dec., 1894), a British subject married a naturalised Frenchman, and died having made a will in English form.

* See Parliamentary Papers: Treaty Series, 1894 (No. 18).