Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ 187.

334

sundrv statutes ... [suit une définition empruntée au „Naval PrizeAct SS5! There is no reason why the defmition clause of the Naval

Act, X864, should be tieated as f planatorv of Order in Councü which makes no refereace to ü. - Their ^ships arloi o^oTthat the cardina) consideration » in X If^uSï £ Councü is the character and scope of the Order itseü.... « suchaïSese are not coveredby the word „goods", it is plair,l that the OMer as a means of carrying out its declared pohcy «g-H^g^ lamentable lacuna; nottóat this i* a reason forsupplyingits defecte by

doTng^

intemreted with reference to the general seope of 'Ae^rderJf ^^1^ S which vmder the terms of the Order, -can be predicated of the ^S^hÏit refers, no one canbe said to be inapphcable to these sGcun tics .

Glenroy (897) : saisie et eonfiscation, a titre de prise marrtime, du prix de vente de marchandises de propriété ennemie, débarquées

dans le port de Londres. . Achilles, n°. 2, and other vessels (1192): saisie et confiscation, a titre

de prise maritime, du produit net de la vente de plusieurs lots de

peaux, cire, caoutchouc, etc, chargés sur treize naviresbntanniques

et appartenant a une société autrichienne.

There is no doubt that the proceeds here claimed are enemy property.

anfSï onirqÏitkinS Are they üable to seizure and condem^üon

ïgonds and lawful pnze to the Crown in its rights to droits of Adnuradty

ïom^

not stül in warehonse in specie, but had been reabsad • , • ■ Lexa™^

.... Under these circumstances it seems to me^that ttawiuun the S Ui The Glenroy. There was a fund which ^as put, as *ex ïïys^medio", and according to The Glenroy wbeie atod of thatkind arising from the sale of goods which wer e üable to:ejzure,

Joodswereonce gone, and the goods themselves could not be seized, any SeTpS would have been allowed ; but aS the principles upon which the Court acts have to be adopted to changed circumstances [comp. § 57. (2)1-

5 den* saisies dtées ci-dessus cHfféraient entre elles en ce que dans le premier cas, les marchandises avaient eté vendues par les ™iét£rTdu navüe, tandis que, dans le dermer, la vente avait Sé&S par unfonctionnaire pubüc s'occupant des capitaux des sujets ennemis domicüiés en Grande-Bretagne (voir aussi § 148).

Sluiten