the appellants have discharged the onus which the Order in Council places upon them of establishing that, at the time when the oranges were intercepted and seized, their destination was not an enemy base of supply. The contention of the appellants is that the destination of the voyage was Rotterdam, and that if the voyage had been carried through without interruption, the oranges would, in the ordinary course of business, have been offered to local dealers at public auction, thereby becoming part of the common stock of a neutral country, to whatever consumers they might ultimately be sold. It was said that if this contention is not accepted, and it is held that the anticipation that a large proportion of the oranges might go for consumption in Germany is sufficiënt to make them contraband, the conséquence is that goods within the category of conditional contraband would be liable to seizure and condemnation wherever there was anticipation that they might be largely sold to enemy customers. The answer is that the anticipation of a large sale to enemy customers is not sufficiënt tó make goods liable as articles of contraband, but that there must be anticipation of sale either to an enemy Government or an enemy base of supply [eomp. § 433]. For instance, in the present case, there must be anticipation that a large number of oranges sold would find their way to Hamburg, which has already been held in many cases to an enemy base of supply [comp. § 461]. Whether the appellants have negatived the suggestion that the destination of the voyage was Hamburg must be determined on the documents and oral evidence produced at the trial. Their Lordships are unable to hold that the mere fact that goods wül be offered for sale by auction at the port of arrival is in itself conclusive of the innocency of theh destination. It would appear to them to be too wide a generalisation that, whatever the special conditions may be, the goods could never be condemned as contraband if once it is established that they would be offered at public auction in a neutral market....
It was for Mr. H. to displace the possibility of any such destination being reconciled with the contemplated auction in Rotterdam, not for the Court to speculate by what means — of which there are obviously several — an auction might be made to play a part in the transmission of the cargo to a predetermined destination in Hamburg. The President held that Mr. H., whom he had seen and heard, had failed to discharge the burden of proof in this matter." $ 494. (1) Pas plus que les tribunaux allemands [comp. §§ 477 et 486], les cours anglaises n'ont considéré comme preuve contraire suffisante de destination innocente de marchandises de contrebande consignées pour un pays neutre, le seul fait de 1'existence dans ce pays d'une interdiction d'exportation. Voir la décision d'appel concernant les Louisiana, Tomsk, Nordic and Joseph W. Fordney (908) :
„It is true, no doubt, that the municipal laws of both Denmark and Sweden prohibit the export of fodder stuffs, but it is not clear that this