Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar


§ 709.

décision d'appel concernant certaines marchandises vendues par un sujet anglais a des suj ets allemands, et saisies sur le vapeur Orteric. Voir les passages ci-après et le cas cité du Schlesien, n°. 2 (307).

Newing v. Procurator-General (1329a) : „Many other considerations may affect the question of seizure. The time and circumstances of the alleged seizure may be inquired into, in order to decide whether the seizure was valid — The Roumanian (205) [comp. § 144] — or to decide whether what passed amounted to a seizure at all — H. M. Procurator in Egypt v. Deutsches Kohlen-Depot Gesellschaft (1047) [comp. § 186]. Belligerent rights are not exhausted by a single seizure; if a first seizure should be deemed bad or its invalidity be apprehended, a second seizure under proper conditions may be made and relied upon. These are questions which usually make the precise date of a seizure material, but none of these questions arose in the present case. [Dans 1'espèce, le navire transporteur, „the Orteric, saüed for Hamburg before the outbreak of war, and on the passage was diverted to Liverpool, where the wheat was seized. The Crown ought to have proved the date of the seizure, for it was very material, but did not do so. It was, however, stated at the trial that the seizure took place on August 22 1914, and this date the claimant.accepted."]

If, as appears to be the fact, the goods did not become enemy goods, if at all, until after August 22, the respondent was driven to contend that, for the purpose of deciding the issue of enemy goods or not enemy goods, the date of the writ wül suffice as the material date. For this no authority was produced. Reliance was indeed placed on The Schlesien, n°. 2 (307) where, the goods seized having been neutral-owned at the date when they were first seized and at the date when a writ in prize was first issued, Sir Samuel Evans held that rétention of possession by the Crown might be regarded as a continuous seizure, so that, when the goods had become enemy goods by the outbreak of war with Austria and a second writ had been thereafter issued, the requisites for their condemnation as enemy property were satisfied. If the first seizure was invalid and there was nothing to justify possession except such seizure, a second might be made when the outbreak of war with Austria made seizure legitimate. The intention of the Crown after the original seizure to hold in the exercise of belligerent rights was found as a fact.... The issue of the writ itself was not merely the expression of the purpose with which the Crown had continued in possession, but it was in itself an overt and notorious act which coupled with due service might amount to a second and valid seizure. It is not quite clear that this was Sir Samuel Evans' finding; but, whatever may be thought of this décision if it proceeded on other grounds, it is inapplicable to the present case. Here there is no second writ, and no extraneous event at all to effect the status of the goods after the seizure. The goods were seized once only and were seized as being then good prize, and this they were not, if they were still British-owned [comp. ci-dessus, § 258, sub A, «)]. If the seizure was