Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

Addenda etc.


„The main questions which were raised were, first, whether an effèctive transfer of the property in the goods in question could be made in the time, and in the circumstances, when the transfer is alleged to have been made .... As. to the first question ..... counsel for the Crown relied upon the judgment of my predecessor, Sir Samuel Evans, in The Bawean (895) ; and he contended for a principle which he founded upon the décision in The Bawean (895) — that no transfer of these goods, untü the voyage on which they had been embarked at the Levantine ports was a completed voyage, could be an effectual transfer so as to defeat the right of capture. I think that proposition is a novel one. There is colour for it in various judgments in prize, but I have come to the conclusion that it is a proposition which is too wide to be an accurate statement of the law of prize with regard to the right of an enemy owner of goods to transfer the property in them after shipment and before arrival at the original port of destination. The subject is one which has been discussed from time to time. The principal modern authority is The Baltica — a judgment of the Privy Gouncil delivered by Mr. Pemberton Leigh in 1857 — • ■ ■ • [suivent quelques détails]....

The contention of the Crown was that as long as the original transitos — the original voyage — is incomplete, there is an indefeasible right to capture. It is hardly necessary to point out how very comprehensive is that alleged right of capture. It seems to attach — at any rate, for the duration of any war — a right of capture in respect of any enemy goods which have once been put on shipboard, and have not reached the port for which they were destined. If that contention truly represents the law, it would be ef fectually made in this case, but as I have said, I think the statement of the law is too wide. If the judgments of Lord Stowell are considered — judgments which contain the original statement in our own Courts of the principles which were stated anew in the Privy Councü in the Baltica — it wül be seen that Lord Stowell clearly recognised the possibüity of a premature termination of the voyage upon which the vessel had originally entered .... (Suivent des détaüs sur les affaires du Danckebaar Africaan [1798] et du Carl Walter [1802]) .... That seems to me to indicate the view of Lord Stowell that, although the destination had been originally an enemy destination, nevertheless, if there had been an abandonment of the enemy enterprise at that time, and a true interposition of neutral ownership, the result would have been to defeat the claim in prize."

Mais, dans 1'espèce, le vendeur ennemi ayant réservé quelque intérêt dans les marchandises, la Cour finit par en déclarer la prise bonne et valable.

avant que 1'AUemagne déclarat la guerre au Portugal (9 mars 1 916», les consignataires primitifs ennemis réussirent a vendre leur chargement a une société néerlandaise, qui, toutefois, se réserva le droit de le refuser si le magnésite se trouvait inapte a être manufacturé dans sa fabrique. Après avoir été chargée sur trois navires neutres, la marchandise fut'saisie par les Anglais.