cient. The fact of actual intercourse is the determining factor. Innocence of intention is no answer. If there has been an infraction of the rule, however innocent, the Court must apply the consequences of decreeing confiscation. To borrow the quaint language of a Judge of the United States Suprème Court: „It is the unenvied province of this Court to be directed by the head, and not by the heart. In deciding on principles that must define the rights and duties of the citizen [and it may be added of alhed citizens], and direct the future décisions of justice, no latitude is left for the exercise of feeling."
Et après avoir parcourü les faits de la cause et constaté : „The Baron de Catelin disavowed with emphasis any intention in these transactions to do anything which would be helpful to the enemy or prejudicial to this country. I accepted wülingly his disavowal. He probably thought that he could properly deliver the cargo of silver lead to his customers, if they accepted delivery at Newcastle or elsewhere in England," la cour conclut:
„Applying the principles deduced from the facts proved, I have no alternative but to declare that the cargo was confiscable and to decree the condemnation of the proceeds as lawful prize." § 674. La question de savoir quel est le degré de diligence que les sujets nationaux et alliés doivent mettre en oeuvre pour faire en sorte qu'un transport commencé, mais infecté du fait de constituer „intercourse or trading with the enemy", soit interrompu en temps utile, est expressément traitée dans la décision Küdonan Castte (397) :
, ,The soie question I have to determine is whether or not the goods which remained the property of a British subject (a South African subject) were liable to capture because they were involved in trading with the enemy. — The shipment of the goods (to Germany) was before the war and the vessel itself actually sailed from Port Elizabeth on August 4,1914, the day of the outbreak of hostilities between this country and Germany. There is no evidence of the exact hour when the ship left; but it is fairly assumed in this case that she had left before il o'clock on the evening of August 4, and therefore the actual departure upon the voyage was just before the outbreak of hostilities. The décision of the case depends upon what was the duty of Mr. W. (the shipper of the goods, a naturalized British subject) after the outbreak of war. The opportunity which was afforded to him to show what he did to stop the goods has not been fruitful of any evidence of any act which he himself performed, in order to try to prevent these goods reaching their intended destination. All he did was apparently to rest content with leaving any acts which might prevent the goods from reaching theh German destination to somebody else. It is admitted that he did no act himself. — Now, in my opinion, from the outbreak of war, although the ship sailed just before, these goods were goods engaged in f orbidden intercourse with the enemy.