constructed for warlike purposes, and not in any respect fitted for commerce, and going to the Havana, with instructions to the master that he should sell her, or take goods on freight at his discretion; but that the owners would prefer the sale of her rather than freighting her, as she was not calculated for such employ unless necessitated, was condemned by the Court of Appeal as contraband. In two cases shortly preceding (The Fanny, Ingraham, and The Neptune, Gibbs), the vessels were of a more ambiguous construction, yet going to the Havana to be sold, with directions that they should be sold there. They had been condemned as contraband in the Vice-Admiralty Court of the Bahamas; but in the hearing before the Court of Appeal, in consideration of the equivocal nature of their character, and the employment in trade in which they had been actually engaged, and of the occasion for selling arising out of the circumstances attending them, the lords reversed the sentence of the court below, and decreed restitution. In The Raven, which was also restored, the vessel had been a French privateer, and had been condemned as such at New York; but it appeared that the purchaser had bought her for the purposes of trade, and having used his best endeavours to make her fit for that service, had found her unsuitable, and was on that account intending to sell her again. Sir C. Robinson (5 Rob. App. 1) adds, "It will appear from a comparison of these cases, that though the principle of considering the sale of ships of war to the enemy contraband, is strictly held by the decisions of the Court of Appeal, the application of the principle has been restricted to cases in which no doubt existed as to the

character of the vessels, or the purposes for which they were intended to be sold."

Neutrals cannot be allowed to carry out a larger quantity of ship stores, which are contraband, as cargo, than are necessary for the ship's use, on the suggestion of the speculation of purchasing other ships. In The Margaretha Magdalena (2 Rob. 138), Lord Stowell said: "It is an alarming circumstance in this case, that, although the outward cargo appears to have consisted of contraband goods, yet the principal owner appears publicly at Copenhagen, and makes oath, that there were no prohibited goods on board destined to the ports of any party now at war. The master himself describes the cargo that he carried out as naval stores; and, on looking into the invoice, I find that they are there represented as goods to be sold. That being so, I must hold that it was a most noxious exportation, and an act of a very hostile character, to send out articles of this description to the enemy, in direct violation of public treaties, and of the duties which the owners owe to their own government. I should consider it as an act that would affect the neutral in some degree on this return voyage; for although a ship on her return is not liable to confiscation for having carried a cargo of contraband on her outward voyage, yet it would be a little too much to say that all impression is done away; because, if it appears that the owner had sent such a cargo under a certificate obtained on a false oath, that there was no contraband on board, it could not but affect his credit at least, and induce the court to look very scrupulously to all the actions and representations of such a person. The master says, that there was not more than was necessary for the ship's use; but this practice is, even with this apology, sufficiently alarming; be

cause it has appeared that other ships have been employed in carrying naval stores to Batavia in the same manner; not as principal cargos, but in moderate quantities, under pretence of stores for the ship's use, but which, nevertheless, were sold, as these were, on their arrival at Batavia. It is apparent that the enemy may be supplied in this mode to a very great amount. What the master says in another place is rather contradictory to this pretence. He says, 'that there was not more than would be wanting for another ship, which he had a design of purchasing at Batavia.' Now, I must say, that it could by no means be allowed, that neutrals shall be at liberty to carry out a larger quantity of articles of this nature than are wanting for their own ship's use, under a speculation of purchasing other ships, and that when they are there the speculation shall be relinquished, and the contraband articles be then sold as stores in the colonies of the enemy. If the speculation was originally really and bonâ fide entertained, on failure of it, the surplus should either be brought back again, or sold in some neutral port of that quarter of the world; for neutrals can have no right to carry out double stores of this description for a contingent purpose, and then dispose of them to the enemy at their pleasure. The master says, 'that he was authorized to purchase a ship;' but there is no appearance of such a commission in the papers, nor are there any documents relating to it. The articles were entered in the invoice as being for sale, and the fact has actually taken place, that they were sold at Batavia. The owner swears that there were no prohibited goods destined for any of the parties now at war. It is not clear from this expression, whether he meant to swear that it was not for the port, or not for the use of an

enemy. It is a very equivocal term. It was certainly going to an enemy's port, and if it was to be sold there, in failure of the speculation of purchasing a ship there, it was then for the use of the enemy. Upon the whole, I think there was great reason to bring this case to adjudication. But after all the inquiry that has been made, I am of opinion that the property of the ship is sufficiently clear, and that there is nothing pointing to any other than a Danish interest in the cargo. If I saw on board anything of the nature of what has appeared in some other cases from Batavia, I should certainly look a little farther into it; but it appears to me that the outward shipment from Copenhagen was sent under the management of the master to invest the proceeds in the produce of Batavia. If the general nature of the transaction has rendered it liable to suspicion, I can only say, that it is a trade in which it is the duty of neutrals to observe a conduct perfectly circumspect, and consistent with all the obligations of good faith. But I am, under all the circumstances, satisfied that the property is as claimed, and I direct it to be restored."

Where naval stores have been laden on board neutral vessels, but before the time limited by the sovereign's notification of hostilities, and destined for his enemies, they will be sold to the sovereign for the benefit of the proprietors. (The Maria Magdalena, Hay & Marriott, 250.) The case of The Vryheid (ib. 188) was that of stores, so captured in a Dutch neutral ship on a voyage to an enemy's port of naval equipment, and claimed as protected by the treaty with Holland of 1674. They were sold for the king's use, and the proceeds of the sale were paid over to

the claimant, including freight and expenses. See also The Vrow Antoinette (ib. 142); The Jonge Josters (ib. 148); The Concordia Affinitatis (ib. 169); The Hoppet (ib. 217); The Jonge Gertruyda (ib. 246); The Prudentia (ib.); The Concordia Sophia (ib. 267); The Drie Gebroeders (ib. 270); The Jonge Juffers (ib. 272); The Sarah and Bernhardus (ib. 175).

When a vessel is taken, having on board a cargo of mixed goods, some of which are fit for her majesty's service, the Navy Board have the right of the preemption of such goods; and in order to reconcile neutrals to the exercise of this right, and to prevent the inconvenience that might arise to them from the separation of the cargo, it is thought advisable to purchase the other part of the goods on board. captor is exonerated from the danger of costs and damages, and is fully indemnified by the payment of his expenses. (Lord Stowell, in The Jonge Jan, 1 Dodson, 458.)

The

Ship timber going to an enemy's port of naval equipment is contraband. (Lord Sowell, The Endraught, 1 Rob. 23.) In this case, besides the general law of nations, the treaty with Denmark having declared that "all articles which serve directly for the building of ships, unwrought iron and fir planks excepted, shall be deemed contraband, it was contended, against condemnation of the cargo, that the term "directly serve" meant specifically such timber as is most generally employed for ship building, and that the lading of The Endraught, balks of the length of only thirty feet, could not be so construed. This point the judge referred for the opinion of the principal persons employed in making repairs for ships or vessels be