Page 67 - Records of Bahrain (3) (i)_Neat

57
British interests and influence, 1898-1904

Defendant Company; Mr. Cecil Chapman held a watching brief on
bohalf of Malcolm, Drunker, & Co. (Limited). .
Mu. Justice Bigiiam.—This was an action brought by the llamtius,
who are merchants carrying on business in London and at Bushiro in
Persia and at Muscat, against the Defendants, who arc underwriters, on
two policies of marine insurance to recover a total loss caused by a
capture at sea of the goods insured. The policies were dated respectively
20th November 1897 and 6th December 1897. The first policy was
described to be on four cases of cartridges, valued at 125l.t per stoamcr
“ Baluchistan," London to Bahrein and (or) other Persian Gulf ports ;
and tho second policy on one case rides and one case cartridges, valued
at 200/., by tho same vessel to Bunder Abbas and (or) other Persian
Gulf ports. Tho bills of lading for the goods mentioned in the first
policy described tho goods as shipped for “Bahroin, via Bushirc, Muscat
optional.” The bills of lading for the second pared described tho goods
simply as shipped for Bunder Abbas. Bahrein is an island on the west
coast of tho Persian Gulf, and Muscat is a port on tho Gulf of Oman,
neither of tho places being in Persian territory. Bushiro and Bunder
Abbas aro ports in tho Persian Gulf and are both in Porsian territory.
Tho “ Baluchistan " sailed from London about 2Gth Novomber 1S97, aud
on 26th January 1S98, whon oft' Muscat, sho was intercepted by Hor
Majesty’s ship “ Lapwing,” purporting to act on bohalf of the Govern­
ment of tho Shah of Persia, and tho goods iu question wero seized and
confiscated. Tho alleged ground of the confiscation was that tho goods
were intended for importation into Porsian territory, and that tho
importation of arms and ammunition was forbidden by tho Porsian law.
Tho Plaintiffs thereupon mado a claim against tho Defondants as for a
total loss. Tho Defendants objected to pay on two grounds. Eirst, they
said that tho Plaintiffs had, when effecting tho iusuranco, concealed a
fact material to tho estimation of tho risk, viz., that tho importation of
arms was forbidden by Porsian law j and, secondly, thoy said that tho
adventuro was illegal, as being in contravention of what they called tho
law of nations. Dealing first with tho question of concealment,
the evidence boforo me was to the offcct that as long ago as 1st July
1881, tho Persiau Government had issued a decree that no arms or
ammunition should enter Porsian territory without tho leave and
permission of tho Government, and that if any such goods arrived at
Bushirc they wero to bo detained and the fact was to bo reported
to the authorities at Teheran. A copy of tho dccroo was put in
evidence.
At the same time directions seem to have been given to tho Customs
officials at Bushiro to bring this decree to the notico of merchants and
traders, so that they might bo warned, uud steps seem to have been
taken in this direction, although in point of fact tho decree appears
never to have been brought to tho notice of tho Plaintiff’s. Tho
prohibition is said to have been reitorated by tho Shah on more than
one occasion, and its oxistcnco is alleged to havo been universally known
(sco Sir Thomas Sanderson’s letter of 13th May 1898, addressed to
Messrs. Walton & Co.). I do not, howover, find that any attempt to
enforce it was ever made, except possibly on ono occasion. In the year
1895 a parcel of arms shipped from England for Muscat by tho steamer
“ Zulu ” was landed at Bushiro. Tho Customs officials there detained
the goods on tho plea (so said the English shipowners in thoir letter of
21st January 1896) “ that tho heavy duty on arms and ammunition
imported into Persia must bo paid." Tho owners of tho goods objected
to pay on tho ground that tho goods woro not intended lor Persia, and
wore merely lauded at Bushiro in transit for Muscat. Both tho Persiau
authonlios uud Sir Mortimer Duraud, our representatives at Teheran,
seem to havo suspected tho truth of this assertion; but ultimately tho
goods were released and forwarded to Muscat. In my opinion, tho roal
dispute botw.oon tho ownors of tho goods and tho Porsian Customs on
8. SO. C