arrival and subsequent sale in the port of the enemy; that the twelfth and twentieth interrogatories were framed with this view to inquire, "whether on its arrival, etc., it shall and will belong to the same owner and no other, etc.," and a reference was made to the case of the Charles Havenerswerth in 1741, in which the form of attestation was directed to be prepared by the whole bar, and was established in the present form to ascertain the property at the several periods of shipment, and arrival in the enemy's ports,-in cases where affidavits were to be received to supply the defects of the original evidence, in the place of plea and proof.

The Court:-"It has always been the rule of the prize courts, that property going to be delivered in the enemy's country, and under a contract to become the property of the enemy immediately on arrival, if taken in transitu, is to be considered as enemies' property. Where the contract is made in time of peace or without any contemplation of a war, no such rule exists:-But in a case like the present, where the form of the contract was framed directly for the purpose of obviating the danger apprehended from approaching hostilities, it is a rule which unavoidably must take place. The bill of lading expresses account and risk of the American merchants; but papers alone make no proof, unless supported by the depositions of the master. Instead of supporting the contents of his papers, the master deposes, that on arrival the goods would become the property of the French government,' and all the concealed papers strongly support him in this testimony: The evidentia rei is too strong to admit farther proof. Supposing that it was to become the property of the enemy on delivery, capture is considered as delivery: The captors, by the rights of war, stand in the place of the enemy, and are entitled to a condemnation of goods passing under such a contract, as of enemy's property. On every principle on which Prize Courts can proceed, this cargo must be considered as enemy's property.

"Condemned."

THE "ANNA CATHARINA."

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, 1802.

(4 C. Robinson, 107.)

Goods going to become the property of the enemy immediately on arrival, condemned.

This was a case of a cargo of dry goods, etc., taken October, 1801, on a voyage from Hamburgh to La Guayra, and described in the

ostensible papers and depositions, "as going to take the chance of the market." By the discovery of a letter, it afterwards appeared, that these goods were going under a special agreement and contract with the Spanish government of the Caracas.

Judgment, Sir W. SCOTT:

*** Taking the shippers to be neutral merchants "how does the character of the goods stand in this transaction? Was it not, in the first place, a cargo going to become the property of the Spanish government immediately on arrival? Was not the Spanish government entitled to possession? It was only on the violation of the contract, on the part of the Spanish government, that these goods were to take the chance of the market. The shippers considered themselves as bound to deliver them to the use of the Spanish government, under the agreement; as entitled to the benefit, and subject to the obligations. of that contract. Were there any intermediate acts to be done after the arrival of the vessel? Or were the acts such, as would have the effect of substantially distinguishing this case from the Sally, and other cases? Is there any act of ownership which the claimant was at liberty to exercise, so as to prevent the delivery? If not the goods must be considered as having substantially become, in itinere, the property of the enemy. ***

"It is said *** that these goods do not exactly correspond with the enumeration in the agreement, that they are not contract goods; and consequently, that without any violation of public faith, the acceptance of them was merely optional and contingent. But, I cannot think, that it is now open to the parties to make this averment; when it is evident, on the face of their own letters, that they had relied on the clear and absolute obligation of the Spanish government to take them as such.

"These distinctions are, in my judgment, totally insufficient to take the case out of the authority of the precedents alluded to. Where the goods are sent under a contract by the party, it surely cannot be permitted to the claimant himself to aver, that the goods so sent are not contract goods. *** Under these circumstances, I am strongly disposed to hold, that this cargo was going in time of war to the port of a belligerent, there to become the property of the belligerent, immediately on arrival, and that the legal consequence of condemnation would on that ground alone attach upon it.” 1

1 Only so much of this case is given as refers to the shipment of goods under contract to a belligerent port.

LES "TROIS FRERES."

COMITÉ DE SALUT PUBLIC, AN III.

(Pistoye et Duverdy, I., 357.)

Semble, that, by the French rule, the neutral shipper may assume the risk of goods in transit to an enemy country.

Le navire danois les Trois-Frères, chargé à Gênes de 535 futailles d'huile, à destination d'Ostende et Amsterdam (qui, en juin 1793, étaient des pays ennemis de la France), fut capturé le 3 juin 1793 par le corsaire le Passe-Partout, de Bordeaux, et le 6 de juillet suivant la prise fut amenée à Bayonne. Le 24 brumaire an II, un jugement du tribunal de commerce de cette ville, sur l'opposition de négociants génois, le sieur Strafforello et Cie, qui avaient revendiqué une partie de la cargaison (150 futailles), fit mainlevée de la capture et condamna les capteurs à payer le prix de la marchandise, valuer d'Ostende et d'Amsterdam, par application du droit de présomption créé par la loi du 9 mai 1793, bien que les capteurs n'eussent pas demandé à user de cette faculté, qui était devenue très-onéreuse par suite du maximum récemment décrété pour toutes les denrées. jugement rendu, les pièces relatives à la capture des Trois-Frères furent envoyées au Conseil exécutif après la loi du 18 brumaire an II, et le Comité de salut public, qui se substitua à ce conseil exécutif, rendit sur cette affaire la décision suivante:

Ce

"Sur le rapport fait au Comité de salut public par le commissaire de la marine et des colonies, que, le 3 juin 1793, le corsaire le PassePartout, de Bordeaux, prit et conduisit à Bayonne le navire danois les Trois-Frères, que le tribunal de commerce à Bayonne ayant statué sur la validité de la prise du navire et l'ayant déclaré neutre, le capitaine a reçu son fret et l'indemnité réglée par le méme tribunal;

"Que, ne s'agissant plus de la cargaison, l'examen des pièces qui la concernent et l'état de la procédure apprennent qu'une partie a été chargée par des Génois, amis de la République française, et pour leur compte et risque; que c'est la propriété de citoyens génois; que conséquemment la saisie qui en a été faite est illégale et nulle, et que la restitution en doit être faite à leurs propriétaires;

"Que la propriété de celles chargées par des Génois pour le compte de qui il appartiendrait ne se trouvant point désignée, ces marchandises sont de droit présumées ennemies, dès le moment qu'il ne se

trouve aucune preuve contraire propre à détruire cette présomption; que, comme telles, elles sont bien saisies et deviennent sujettes à confiscation;

"LE COMITÉ DE SALUT PUBLIC,-statuant en conséquence de son arrêté du 4 floréal dernier, arrête :

"1° Est confirmé le jugement du tribunal de commerce de Bayonne, du 30 août 1793, rendu en faveur du capitaine danois du navire les Trois-Frères, et par lequel ce navire a été déclaré propriété neutre, et relâché avec payement de son fret et une indemnité;

"2° Sont déclarées propriétés génoises et neutres les marchandises chargées à bord du navire les Trois-Fréres pour compte et risque des citoyens Strafforello et autres;

"3° Les marchandises appartenant aux citoyens Strafforello et autres Génois leur seront restituées, dans les quantités marquées et qualités désignées dans les connaissements; et, en cas de vente de ces marchandises, les armateurs du corsaire le Passe-Partout en rembourseront la valeur, suivant le cours dans le lieu de leur destination au moment de la prise, avec intérêt de la valeur des objets restitués, les dits intérêts tenant lieu de toute indemnité d'indue rétention;

"4° Sont déclarées propriétés ennemies et comme telles acquises par confiscation aux armateurs et à l'équipage du corsaire le PussePartout, toutes autres parties de la cargaison du navire les TroisFrères et qui ont été chargées pour le compte de qui il appartiendra;

"5° Les marchandises de cette cargaison, si elles existent encore en nature, qui pourraient être jugées utiles au service de la République, seront achetées pour son compte, et la valeur en sera payée dès la remise au magasin à ceux à qui elles appartiennent, aux termes du présent arrêté.' (Cette cause était usuelle au temps du Comité de salut public. Voyez Merlin, Questions de droit V. Prises mari times, § II.) 1

1 Observations.- Aujourd'hui, que le principe que le pavillon couvre la cargaison est admis sans conteste, cette décision peut paraître au premier abord n'avoir qu'un intérêt historique ; elle a cependant aussi un intérêt juridique. En effet, la déclaration de l'Empereur, du 29 mars 1854, annonce que les marchandises neutres chargées sur navires ennemis ne seront pas confisquées. L'arrêté du Comité de salut public juge que des marchandises chargées par des neutres avec d'autres marchandises reconnues neutres et destinées à un port ennemi, doivent être réputées ennemies, si le destinataire n'est pas connu. Cette décision pourrait s'appliquer aujourd'hui à des marchandises chargées sur un navire ennemi. En effet, il s'agissait dans l'espèce de savoir quelle était la nationalité des marchandises, et cette question était tout à fait indépendante de la nationalité du navire vecteur."

SECTION 35.-TRANSFER IN TRANSITU.

THE "VROW MARGARETHA.”

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, 1799.

(1 C. Robinson, 336.)

This was the case of a cargo of brandies shipped by Spanish merchants in Spain in May, 1794, before Spanish hostilities, and transferred to Mr. Berkeymyer at Hamburgh, during their voyage to Holland. Held, to be a bona fide transaction, and the rule against transfer in transitu was not applied.

Judgment, Sir W. SCOTT:

"This is a claim of Mr. Ph. Berkeymyer, of Hamburgh, for some parcels of wine which were seized on board three Dutch vessels detained by order of government in 1795. The ships have been since condemned; the cargoes were described in the ship's papers, as far as the property was expressed, as belonging to Spanish merchants. It is material, in this case, to consider the relative situation of the countries from which, and to which these cargoes were going. Spain and Holland were then in alliance with this country and at war with France; it might, therefore, be an inducement with a Spanish merchant to conceal the property of his goods, although it does not appear to have existed in any great degree, as the goods were coming under an English convoy, and as they were shipped 'as Spanish wines,' and destined, avowedly, to Holland; there was, therefore, nothing in this part of the case to mislead our cruisers. Mr. Berkeymyer is allowed to be an inhabitant of Hamburgh, although he had made a journey, a short time previous to the shipment of these cargoes, to Spain (where he had resided some years before), to settle his affairs, and bring off the property which he had left behind him. He had quitted Spain, however, previous to the breaking out of Spanish hostilities, and had resumed his original character of a merchant of Hamburgh. The account which he gives of his transactions in Spain, as far as they regard this case, is, that he entered into a contract with two Spanish houses for some wines, which were at the time actually shipped, and in itinere towards Holland. The first objection that has been taken is, that such a transfer is invalid, and cannot be set up in a Prize Court, where the property