Mr. Justice Sankey said that, looking at the terms
and conditions contained in the document governing
the letting and hiring of steamers for transport
purposes and at the bill of lading, it was clear that
the vessel's voyages were alike intended for military
purposes, and that the carriage of goods of private
persons to London was subsidiary to and subservient
upon such military purposes. He did not think
the use of the ship was foreign to that intent and
object, nor that what happened amounted to an
abandonment of the voyage. He therefore held that
there had been no deviation from the specified voyage ; Devia-
and, further, that the user of the ship both at Mudros voyage.
and Imbros was in consequence of orders and direc-
tions given by his Majesty's Government, and came



46



The Law of War and Contract



Contracts
with War
Clauses.
Recent
cases :

Bill of
lading.
Devia-
tion of
voyage.
within the express provision that compliance, with
such orders and directions was not to be deemed
to constitute a deviation. He therefore dismissed
the petition.
On appeal this decision was reversed on the ground
stated by the Lord Chief Justice that the facts showed
that the Government used the ship as a store and
warehouse and that such use was not provided for in
the bill of lading.
" He thought the Government could use the
vessel for any military purpose always provided that
that purpose was consistent with the main object
and intent of the contract, which was to carry the
goods from the Commonwealth to London or ports
in the United Kingdom; and he would be prepared
to go very far in such times as these in giving a wide
latitude to the Government as to the ports of call.
