to the enemy had been frustrated and abandoned, and the goods themselves had been sold and delivered to other buyers, when the vessel was seized, she had become freed from any liabüity to confiscation."
Puis, la com procéda a 1'examen de la question principale, savoir,
„whether, according to international law as now understood, and as it should be administered in this Court, a vessel which may have been subject :to captme and condemnation for carrying contraband goods on an outward voyage remains subject to capture and confiscation upon the retmn voyage, ü on the outward voyage the ship carried false papers, or had a false destination, or was otherwise engaged in a deceptive and fraudulent transaction for the purpose of defeating legitimate beüigerent rights."
D'abord, la com cite les diverses décisions dans lesqueües la doctrine anglaise s'est développée: Nancy ; Rosalie et Elizabeth [1802, jugement d'appel] :
„the carriage of contraband outward with false papers would affect the ship as weü as the retmn cargo with condemnation ;"
Baltic  et Margaret:
„(both ship and cargo are to be condemned,) even if the retmn cargo did not represent the proceeds of the outward contraband, (and even if) the outward voyage had taken place over three years before the captme."
Ensuite, la cour fait mention de la critique et de la défense que la thèse a rencontrées chez les jurisconsultes américains, de 1'insertion de la règle dans le „Manual of Naval Prize Law" (1866et 1888), de son apphcation par les cours des prises russes et japonaises dans les affaires AUanton et Eastry , jugées en conformité des règlements de prises de ces deux Etats, et enfin de son insertion dans le memorandum préparé en 1908 pour les délégués de la Grande-Bretagne a la Conférence navale de Londres, pour conclure de cette série de données:
„ln these cbcumstances, whatever may have been written by jurists, I am not prepared to pronounce that the rule of international law upon the subject, which has been declared and acted upon in this country by the highest Prize courts, as also in those of America, has ceased to be in force. — The ease with which, in the circumstances of modern maritime trade, papers and destinations can be falsified, and frauds can be carried out, in no way minbnises the obligations of neutrals engaged in such trade in time of war to act with frankness, straightforwardness, and good faith.
I accordingly should hold that a vessel which has been used by its owner by means of false papers, with false destination, and any such deceitful practices intended to elude the right of capture by belhgerents to carry contraband goods to the enemy, and which had delivered such goods on an outward voyage, remains confiscable upon the retmn voyage also. What would constitute the return voyage would depend upon all the circumstances of the particular case."