Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

549

§ 300,

pareille compagnie devait être considérée comme anglaise, malgré les intéréts purement ennemis.

„For the claimants it was contended that the goods belonged to an English company, not to alien enemies, and were not subject to seizure or confiscation.

On the other hand, it was argued for the Crown that, as all the directors were enemy subjects and resident in Germany, and all the shareholders were also either enemy subjects or resident in Germany, the goods were in reality the property of alien enemies, and ought to be condemned as such.

I was referred .. .. , of course, to the judgments pronounced by the Court of Appeal in Continental Tyre &c Co., Lim. v. Daimler Co., Lim. and v. Thomas Tilling Lim. [1915] .... The judgments in the Court of Appeal in the Continental Tyre Co. Cases bear chrectly upon the point arising in the present case. What, therefore, ought I to do in this Court in view of those décisions ? — In matters relating to prize, the Court of Appeal does not bind this Court, for the reason that no appeal hes to the Court of Appeal from judgments given in the Prize Court. The only appellate Court in such cases is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Councü [voir aussi § 57, (5)].

If I were of opinion that different principles appüed in the present proceedings in a Court of Prize, or ü I held a strong opinion upon the legal aspects, even if the same principles were applicable, I conceive it would be my duty to give effect to such opinion, even though it differed from that of the Court of Appeal. But I do not think in the present case cüfferent principles ought to be appüed. The matter in controversy appears to me to be one which should be regarded from the point of view of municipal law; and no question of an overriding principle of international law arises. —• The claimants come forward as a company incorporated in accordance with the law of this country. The claim is not made by the individual shareholders —■ subj ects of a foreign country, enemy or otherwise. The question turns upon the status of the company in this kingdom. Accordingly, nothing in this case depends upon the bearing of the law of nations upon our municipal law. —In these circumstances^,! think it more respectful to the Court of Appeal to act in accordance with their judgment, however much I might feel inclined to sympathise with the dissentient views of Lord Justice Buckley 1).

') Dans une lettre adressée au „Times" au mois de janvier 1915, Lord Lindney a exposé la controverse tranchée par les jugements relatifs a la „Continental Tyre &c. Co., Lim.", dans les termes suivants:

„The Court, with one dissentient, came to the startling conclusion that a joint stock company registered and incorporated under the Joint Stock Companies Acts, but completely under the control of Germans resident in Germany, was an alien friend and entitled to maintain an action in our Courts, and not an alien enemy and therefore unable to do so [voir aussi §§ 109 et 110]. — This décision is so important and opposed to the principle

Sluiten