Page 69 - Records of Bahrain (3) (i)_Neat

59
British interests and influence, 1898-1904

" Persia, this practically only substitutes an arbitrary impost for a fixed
“ duty.” What then did the plaintiffs know and behove at tho tune
tlioy took out the policies sued on ? They know probably that tnoro
was a nominal prohibition against the importation or arms, liioy
know, as tho fact was, that it was never acted upon; thoy bad never
heard of any attempt to onforco it; they know that so long as the
duties (which no doubt were arbitrary and variable) wero paid there
was no prospect at all of interference, and they know that the trade was
open aud notorious. Thoy dealt with tho Defondants with perfect
honesty. They did not suggest that tho clauso in the policies warranting
tho goods free of capturo should bo struck out. This was dono on the
initiative of tho Defendants themselves, following what appears to be
tho ordinary practico on an insurance of goods, so that tho Defendants
by their own act became liablo for a loss by capturo. It was, indeed,
suggested in the course of tho ease that tho shipment with an option
to laud tho goods at Muscat pointed to somo fear in tho minds of tho
Plaintiffs that there might bo a danger of tho goods being interfered
with at Busliiro.
I am, however, quito satisfied that tho only object in obtaining from
tho shipowner tho option to land tho goods at Muscat was to enable tho
Plaintiffs to avail themselves of either markot, Muscat or Busliiro,
whichever might be most advantageous. It had no reference to
possible difficulties at Bushire, no such difficulties boing, in my opinion,
anticipated by the Plaintiffs. Now, in tlicso oircumstancos, wero the
Plaintiifs guilty of auy omission such as would invalidate their in-
surauco ? Their duty to tho underwriters was not only to bo honest
and straightforward (which I am satisfied thoy wero), but to disclose to
them all the facts in thoir knowledge which could reasonably affect tho
judgment of the underwriters in estimating tho risk; liowoYOr honest
tho Plaintiffs may liavo boon, if thoy failed in this duty they must lose
tho benefit of their insurance. Tho question thus resolves itself into
one of puro fact. Wore tho ^circumstances as known to the Plaintiffs
material in estimating tho risk ? I am of opinion thoy wero not. I
have to cxcrciso my knowlodgo of business, and I am quite satisfied
that if tho Plaintiffs had told to tho Defondants all that thoy knew
about this trade it would not liavo affected tho judgmout of tho under­
writers in estimating tho risk at all. I do not forget that an underwriter
was called to tell mo that, in his opinion, tho existence of an obsoloto
prohibition would affect tho risk ; nor do I forgot that thoro wore othor
underwriters in Court ready to say the same thing. Thoy speak after
tho ovent. Bor my own part I doubt whothor the “ Lapwing ” acted on
the initiative of tho Porsian Government at all.
A copy of The Times of 10th December 1897, containing a telegram
from that newspaper’s correspondent, dated Teheran, 16tli December
1897, was put in evidence, in which a seizure of arms which had just
been made in Busliiro was attributed to the vigorous action of tho
British and Porsian authorities. I think the tologram would havo been
more accurate if it had attributed the seizuro to the vigorous action of
the British authorities alono. {See the lotto? of tho Plaintiffs’ Busliiro
house, dated 18th December 1897.) No doubt it was at this timo
suspected (probably wrongly) that tlicso arms were destined for tho
Afghanistan frontier, wlioro tho nativo tribes wore giving troublo to tho
Indian Government, and I cannot help thinking that tho action of tho
Porsian Government in Dcoombor 1897, and also on tho occasion in
question in this action, when tho services of tho 41 Lapwing” wore
requisitioned, was really due, not to tho prohibition which existed
against tho importation of arms, but to somo representations of tho
British Government mado to tho Shah. Whothor I am right or wrong
in this conjcoturo is, howover, of littlo or no importance. It is sufficient
for mo to say that, in my view of tho facts, thoro was nothing in tho
knowlodgo of tho Plaintiffs which could reasonably hay© affcotcd tho
S. 30. D