entitled to them. There is nothing under article i with reference to origin or to ownership. Under article 2 goods laden on a vessel at a German port and discharged on her voyage from that German port — again without regard to their destination or ownership — shall be detained or sold • buf with this addition — that if neutral property, they may be released on application of the proper officer of the Crown, or if sold, their proceeds may be ordered to be paid out of Court before conclusion of peace, if it is shewn that the goods had become neutral property before March n, 1915. Under article 4 goods on board a vessel saüing from a port, other than a German port, if they are (a) of enemy origin, or (b) enemy property, are to be discharged and are to be detained or sold; but again if they are neutral property, although of enemy origin, they may be released on appücation of the proper officer of the Crown, or if sold, then proceeds may be ordered to be paid out of Court before the conclusion of peace, ü it is shewn that they had become neutral property before March 11', 1915. Now comes article 3, which provides that goods carried on a vessel on her way from her port of departure to any port other than a German port (a) which were being carried with an enemy destination, or (b) which are enemy property, are to be discharged, and restored on terms to the person entitled to them ; but there is the important proviso, that this article is not applicable in any case faüing within the articles 2 and 4. As I pointed out in the course of the argument, the provisoes to articles 2 and 4 themselves shew by impücation ( I think by necessary impücation), first, that enemy property is not to be released at aü during the war, and, secondly, that the proceeds of sale of enemy property are net to be paid out of Court untü after the conclusion of peace. I cannot help thinking that the words „or which are enemy property" must have crept into article 3 by mistake. It could not, in my opinion, having regard to the other provisions and the object of the Order, have been contemplated that enemy goods should be immediately restored to the person entitled — namely an enemy person - or that, if sold, the proceeds should be restored immediately to an enemy owner. In any event, the language
of the proviso to article 3 is very clear and precise to exclude its
operation m cases fading within articles 2 and 4 ; and the words of article 4 are also clear and precise and obviously apply in the facts of this case . . . ."
885. (1) De 1'avis de la cour de première instance, le principe de nullité, a 1'égard du capteur, de transferts de propriété en transit [voir § 273 et ss.] s'appliquerait également aux détentions effectuées en vertu des „Reprisals Orders". Par conséquent, 1'expression „enemy property" doit être interprétée, selon elle, dans le sens de „goods of enemy character", de sorte que peuvent être détenues comme „enemy property" sous 1'empire de ces „Orders", les marchandises qui n'ont été transférées a des ressortissants neutres qu'au cours du transport. La doctrine du voyage continu [voir