wards ratified and adopted by the Crown [voir, a ce sujet, chap. 8, § 173]. Subject to condemnation in Prize, the capture is for the Crown's benefit, and it is by the Crown's bounty that the actual captors participate in the fruits of the prize [voir chap. 5, § 125]. On the other hand, the obligation is unquestioned to bring the prize in for condemnation and, pending its delivery into the custody of a Court of Prize, to safeguard it from avoidable injury or loss. This obligation is for the benefit of the parties interested, to whom the property may be released by the Court if the grounds of condemnation fail. These belligerent rights and these obligations towards neutrals are correlative and ought to correspond. They are rights and obligations of the Crown, although exercised and discharged by the proper executive officers.
The Prize Court Rules now make provision for the commencement of the proceedings for condemnation, to which, according to old practice, the actual captors were parties, by the issue of a writ in the name of the Crown only, by its proper officer, who is the Procurator-General [comp. §§ 104 et 105]. As a result of this change, the position of neutrals in a Court of Prize must be greatly prejudiced, unless, in assuming the position of captor in the Prize Court proceedings, the Crown also assumes responsibility towards neutral claimants. This matter came before their Lordships' Board in The Zamora (322), and, at least as regards liabüity for deaüngs with the res during the proceedings to the préjudice of the parties ultimately successful, the question was decided [comp. §§ 30 et 105]. What now remains open is responsibüity for damage arising from faüure to take care of the res prior to the commencement of proceedings in the Prize Court.... [citation du passage suivant du jugement relatif au Zamora (322): „In theh Lordships' opinion, (the Prize Court Rules) are f ramed on the f ooting that where the Crown by its proper officer is a party to the proceedings it takes upon itself the üabüity as to damages and costs to which under the old procedure the actual captors were subject."].... It was contended before their Lordships that the Procurator-General takes the place of captor only for the purpose of the proceedings in the Prize Court.... In theh Lordships' opinion, the effect of the Prize Court Rules is that, after the proceedings are instituted, the Procurator-General is the captor, not for particular and specified purposes, but generaUy, although it is true that the actual captors are referred to in some rules for specific purposes, such as joint capture and prize bounty [comp. §§ 181 et 35]. It is not necessary for their Lordships to decide on the present occasion whether damages could have been claimed against him, if he had not commenced proceedings in Prize, although they are not to be understood as negativing his liability even in such a case. They are, however, unable to find anything in the Rules to limit his liability, since he has elected to begin proceedings .... The argument involves no little injustice. Had the Crown been pleased to issue the proclamation usual in former wars, granting prize to the actual captors [comp. § 125, sous Grande-Bretagne, ^a)] and had the traditional practice remained unaltered, they would have been liable in the Prize