money, notes, or cheques were shipped from America to Germany for the purchase of these bonds, they would clearly be goods or property with an enemy destination ; and equally so are the bonds sent in return, goods or property of enemy origin."
Dans le même sens: Noordam, n°. 2, and other vessels (1169; appel: 1329c).
§ 837. Lors même que la détention d'un navire neutre et le débarquement des marchandises par les forces navales britanniques se sont effectués par suite d'une interprétation erronée de l'„Order in Council", ü n'y a pas lieu d'allouer aux intéressés des dommagesintérêts, si cette erreur résulte de la difficulté de la question de droit a résoudré. Sigurd, n°. 2 (862) [voir pour les faits ci-dessus, § 333] : „On I une 28, 1917.1 decided the point of law arising out of the seizure under the Order in Councü of March 11, 1915 .... I ordered the goods to be released because, in my view, the Order in Councü did not apply in such a case. The owners of part of the cargo then ordered to be released now claim against the Crown for costs and damages, on the ground that the seizure was wrongful, and was a seizure which entitied them, in accordance with the principles appüed in this Court, to costs and damages The question that I have to decide is whether the seizure, in
the tircumstances, was one which imposed an obligation on the Crown to answer to the claimants in costs and damages. The point which was argued on June 28, 1917, was an important one, and not at all an easy one to decide. It was fuüy argued, and I am told that my judgment is to be reviewed in the Privy Councü. That means that the first law officer of the Crown and other counsel think the point is arguable, and very likely they advise that my judgment is wrong.
Having said so much I need now only add that I wül foüow the case of The Luna , decided by Lord Stoweü. That was a case where the capture was made in circumstances simüar to this, by reason of a wrong construction placed upon an Order in Councü. Lord Stoweü said that where there was a legal question of that kind he would not impose upon the captors the obligation to pay any costs or damages. That case was referred to and dealt with, among other cases, in The Ostsee , in the Privy Councü, at the time of the Crimean War .... [suivent quelques observations concernant 1'opinion de la cour d'appel sur 1'obligation des capteurs de dédommager les réclamants en cas d'interprétation erronée d'une règle de droit ou d'un „Order in Councü", — observations dont il semble permis de conclure que la com d'appel, eüe aussi, adopte „the principle that there may be questions of so much nicety in the construc-
Itionof public documents, or the deterrnination of unsettied points of law, as to exonerate captors from what would ordinarüy be the consequence of theh mistake."] I agree with the judgment in The Luna, and accept it as an authority which I ought to foüow. The result is