1916 Supreme(SC) 21
Privy Council
Sir Arthur Channell, Wrenbury , Parmoor, Sumner, Justice Lords Parker of Waddington, JJ.
Panariellos, In re -Appellant
Versus
. -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 137 of 1915
Decided On : 13-04-1916
Important Points
Subject
International Law - Prize Law
Headnote
(B) Burden of Proof - Once goods are engaged in forbidden trading, the burden lies on the claimant to establish that the engagement was abandoned through a physical dealing with the res (the goods themselves) before seizure. Mere personal declarations of intention or negotiations are insufficient to withdraw goods from a forbidden adventure. (Paras 16-20)
(C) Prize Law - Distinction between neutral contraband and trading with the enemy - Goods engaged in prohibited trading by a subject or ally may be forfeited even if seized after the actual delictum has ended, unlike neutral goods which typically must be seized in delicto. (Para 22)
Facts of the case:
A company shipped minerals from a neutral port to be delivered for the benefit of an enemy firm. During the voyage, war broke out. The company attempted to transfer bills of lading to an agent of the enemy firm in a neutral territory, but the agent's office was closed by authorities. The ship was diverted to a different port for safety. Upon arrival, the goods were detained by customs and subsequently seized as prize. The claimants argued that the trading had ceased before the formal seizure.
Findings of Court:
The shipment was engaged in forbidden intercourse with the enemy because it was for the benefit of an enemy resident in an enemy country. The claimants failed to show that the goods were withdrawn from the forbidden adventure through any act affecting the goods themselves before the date of detention.
Issues: Whether the shipment of goods for the benefit of an enemy resident in an enemy country constitutes trading with the enemy, and whether a subsequent change of intention or diversion of the ship suffices to relieve the goods from forfeiture if no physical dealing with the goods occurred to abandon the trade.
Ratio Decidendi: Intercourse with an enemy subject resident in an enemy country is forbidden even if conducted through an agent in a neutral or allied territory. Once goods are engaged in such trade, they are liable to forfeiture unless the owners prove the engagement was abandoned by a dealing with the res. Mere repentance or change of intention without a physical act withdrawing the goods from the forbidden adventure is insufficient. Forfeiture for trading with the enemy applies even if the actual delictum has ended.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
This is the claimants' appeal from the condemnation, for trading with the enemy, of 1,020 tons of silver-lead ex steamship "Panariellos," as droits of Admiralty. They raise points little, if at all, relied upon below. This explains how it is that evidence, now much needed, was given below scantily or not at all, though often it was in the claimant's possession. The appellants now accept much that before was disputed, and raise issues before their Lordships which must be decided by inference from indefinite and imperfect materials. It may be that they suffer from the course so taken.
On the 11th August, 1914 the Greek steamer "Panariellos" sailed from Ergasteria for Belgium and the United Kingdom with a cargo of minerals belonging to the appellants, the Compagnie Francaise des Mines du Laurium. The cargo consisted of about 1,020 tons of lead, stowed in the bottom of the ship, and about 3,500 tons of calamine and 600 of speiss stowed above the lead. There were three bills of lading : one for the entire cargo, one for half of the lead, another for the other half. Each bill of lading expressed that the cargo, which it covered, was consigned to the appellants themselves. The lead was made deliverable at Newcastle; the bill of lading for the entire cargo made it deliverable at Antwerp and Newcastle, but the calamine, at any rate, was in fact to be discharged at Antwerp. The bills of lading incorporated a voyage charter, dated the 18th July, 1914, for Antwerp and Tyne below bridges. It gave a lien for freight and demurrage.
The loading of this cargo began on the 29th July, 1914 and finished on the 10th August. The appellants, whose siege social is in Paris with an office at Laurium, where they exploit mines, have not contested that at all material times they were aware of the outbreak of war between Great Britain and France and Germany. The appellants had long been in commercial relations with the firm of Beer Sondheimer and Co., of Frankfort-on-the-Main, who traded in metallic ores. Running contracts existed between them, under which Beer Sondheimer and Co. sent cargoes of galena from Tunis to Ergasteria, where the appellants treated them and re-shipped the resulting lead ore as arranged with their German customers. In form, the appellants bought the galena from Beer Sondheimer and Co. and sold to them the lead extracted from it. As these transactions regularly followed one another, there was a running account between the parties on which a balance was outstanding in favour of the appellants. In this way the shipment of lead ore in question came to be made. It is common ground in the present proceedings that the lead still belonged to the appellant company at all material times. At one time a claim was made on behalf of Beer Sondheimer and Co., as owners, but it was abandoned, and the ownership of the cargo need not be pursued further.
As soon as war broke out Beer Sondheimer and Co. set to work to get possession of the bills of lading. Communication being suspended between Frankfort and Paris, they telegraphed to the appellants office at Ergasteria on or before the 4th August to send the bills of lading direct to Beer Sondheimer and Co., of London, and asked that the appellants' Paris house might be directed to transmit these instructions to this London firm. The appellants forwarded these instructions, but at that time no bills of lading had been signed, and nothing further was done.
The London firm of Beer Sondheimer and Co. consisted of one person, a German named Emil Beer. Whether he had any other business than that of agent in London for Beer Sondheimer and Co., of Frankfort, does not appear. At any rate, his firm in London were sole agents for the Frankfort firm and, as he is said to be "a partner" in the Frankfort firm, presumably that firm had other members. The Frankfort and the London firms were distinct, but in intimate relations with one another. On the 21st August the London firm, then in charge of an Austri