Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ 333.


Order These goods do not fairly come within that description. They weie goods laden at a German port before March i, 1915, and therefore I think under Article II the ship was immune from the obhgation to discharge the goods in a British or allied port. The result is that the goods must be

Bien que, par conséquent, la cour des prises réprouvat comme erronée l'application de l'„Order in Councü" au cas de la barque, eüe rejeta néanmoins la demande ultérieure des intéressés en dommages-intérêts, basée sur la détention et le déchargement üijustifiés. Voir ci-après, § 337 : Sigurd, n°. 2 (862). § 334. Les mots : „or which are enemy property" figurant dans 1'article ' 3 de l'„Order in Councü" du 11 mars 1915, doivent s'y être glissés par erreur ; aussi, les marchandises de propriété ennemie passant en AUemagne par un port neutre ne doivent-eües pas être restituées aux ayants-droit ennemis, quand même eües rentrent dans 1'hypothèse dudit article 3, paree que ce dernier ne s'applique point aux cas tombant sous les articles 2 et 4.

Progresso (480), navüe norvégien, transportant dix caisses d'huües végétales volatües, consignées de New-York a Gothembourg (Suède), mais destinées pour 1'AUemagne et débarquées pour ce motif dans

un port anglais. f .

Mr B kindly afforded me his assistance as amicus Curiae m the argument on this Order, which is rather düücult to construe. The foundation of Mr B 's argument is this — that the pohcy of the „Reprisais Order was to distinguish between the treatment of goods going to Cermany and goods coming from Germany in this respect, that aU goods going to Germany (wherever they were coming from and to whomsoever they belonged) were intended to be restored, and restored immediately; wh reas aü goods coming from Germany were to be detained and sold, and only to be released, or the proceeds delivered up, at the end of the war, upon such terms as the Court might think fit to impose. Upon that he buüds an able and ingenuous argument.

But I do not find any indication of such a pohcy underlymg the Order in Councü The difficulty arises here in the main by reason of the words or which are enemy property" having been put into article 3. I ha.e feit from the beginning that it was not very easy to give a complete ard satisfactorV exülanation of how those words came to be there inserted. fnattóStowork out the meaning of the „Reprisals" Order, and the effect of it I think may be stated in this way. I wül take first of all articles 1, 2 and 4 by reason of the proviso to article 3, which excludes tne apphcation of article 3 in certain cases. Under article x goods discharged from a vessel on her voyage from her port «f departureto any German port, without regard to theh origin or ownership, shaü be resto red on terms — on such terms as the Court may impose — to the person