by enemy persons, has been much ^^J^SLZS^
fG°: Brij™™* 19x6.2 a. c. 307). j\^üzi^:szs-
that case was not precisely the same as that which arises here . the ques tion was wfether the composition and bnsiness of a company were such TtoSvetrS enemy character, so that persons in this conntry were SohibS from doingyanything for it, so entering mto any commercral fntprcourse with it, or in any Way trading with it. . . .
TheT bXged nommaUy to a British company regis ered m this coun^t% In my opinion, in this Comt of Prize I have a right to look and amfcSmd to look at something beyond the nominal ownerslup St Texposé des faits réels qui démontrent:] that the whole control anddon\ïïonoverthis ship were vested in and exercised (not by anyoody r^his country at au, but) by the ^^^Sf^1^^ Now aoartlrom technicalities, could anybody say this ship beiongea toTBrftÏÏh company ? If it did in name belong to a British company that SvS^SIE merest thinnest shell, and I must break through in order"o ascertain who the real owners of the ship were. There can t 1 doubt SSTreal owners are the Hambmg-Amerika Linie, and
arise in a different form of proceedings and that is whether she wa Pntitied to flv that'flag ? The Merchant Shippmg Act, 1894 says .
f slip shaü not be\emed to be a British ship unless owned wholly by'persons of the following descxiption, namely:
TWies coroorate established under and subject to the ïaws 01 som^art of hT^'s dominions, and having their principal place
°f l^Z^rZ^SL said by the learned Lords in the case of12 TortiZ7al Tyre é Rubber Company, that *«P^ *e istered office of the Company does not de ter ™ ^Jnïï^^
I wül refer to two J^.^^^^^A other that she was not owned by a person qual^ed to' j ^uld