About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

" Hoop," In re The Eng. Rep. 146 (1752-1865)

handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0374 and id is 1 raw text is: out there, it is by no means a port of naval military equipment in its principal occu-
pation (a), in the same manner as Brest is universally known to be.
The Court, however, was unwilling, in the present case, to conclude the claimant
on the mere point of destination, it being alleged that the cheeses were not fit for
naval use, but were merely luxuries for the use of domestic tables. It therefore
permitted both [196] parties to exhibit affidavits as to their nature and quality.
The claimant has exhibited none ; but there are authentic certificates from persons
of integrity and knowledge, that they are exactly such cheeses as are used in British
ships, when foreign cheeses are used at all ; and that they are such as are exclusively
used in French ships of war.
Attending to all these circumstances, I think myself warranted to pronounce
these cheeses to be contraband, and condemn them as such. As, however, the party
has acted without dissimulation in the case, and may have been misled by an in-
attention to circumstances, to which in strictness he ought to have adverted, as
well as by something like an irregular indulgence on which he has relied ; I shall
content myself with pronouncing the cargo to be contraband, without enforcing the
usual penalty of the confiscation of the ship, belonging to the same proprietor.
THE  Hoop -(Cornelis, Master). Feb. 13, 1799.-British merchants are not at
liberty to trade with the enemy without the King's licence ; all property taken
in such a trade, is confiscable as prize to the captor.
[S. C. 1 Eng. Pr. Cas. 104. Referred to in numerous cases on the subject of enemy
trading and the rule of non-intercourse. See Potts v. Bell, 1800, 8 T. R. 556
Esposito v. Bowden, 1857, 7 E. & B. 780; The  Marie Glaeser, [1914] P. 222
The  Mbwe, [1915] P. 7 ; Porter v. Freudenberg, [1915] 1 K. B. 867 ; Arnhold
Karberg & Co. v. Blythe, Green, Jourdain & Co., [1915] 2 K. B. 389; British and
Foreign Marine Insurance Company v. Sanday, [1916] 1 A. C. 671; Horlocc v.
Beal, [1916] 1 A. C. 507 ; Zinc Corporation v. Hirsch, [1916] 1 K. B. 558 ; Halsey
v. Lowenfeld, [1916] 2 K. B. 712; The Manningtry, [1916] P. 342; Stevenson
v. Aktien Gesellschaftfiir Cartonnagen Industrie, [1917] 1 K. B. 855, affirmed,
[1918] A. C. 239; Continho Caro & Co. v. Vermont & Co., [1917] 2 K. B. 591 ;
Tingley v. Miler, [1917] 2 Ch. 166; Naylor Benzon & Co. v. Krainische Industrie
Gesellschaft, [1918] 1 K. B. 343 ; Ertel Bieber & Co. v. Rio Tinto Co., [1918]
A. C. 268 ; Rodriguez v. Speyer Brothers, [1919] A. C. 72, 96, 123.]
This was a case of a claim of several British merchants for goods purchased on
their account in Holland, and shipped on board a neutral vessel.
The affidavit annexed to the claim set forth :-That Mr. Malcom of Glasgow, and
several other merchants of North Britain, had, long prior to hostilities, been used to
trade extensively with Holland, in the importation of various articles of the produce of
Holland, [197] which were particularly wanted for the use of Glasgow, and essentially
necessary to the agriculture and manufacture of that part of the kingdom ; that,
after the irruption of the French into Holland, they had constantly applied for,
and obtained special orders of His Majesty in council, permitting them to continue
that trade ; that after the passing of the acts of parliament 35 G. 3. c. 15 (a) & 80,
36 G. 3. c. 76, 37 G. 3. c. 12, confirming and continuing the orders of council of the
16th and 21st of January, it was apprehended in that part of Great Britain, that
by these acts the importation of such goods was made legal : but for the greater
(a) Agreeably to this distinction Dutch cheeses going from Amsterdam to
Bourdeaux, on account of a merchant of Altona, were restored on farther proof.
The  Welvaart, Kwest, Aug. 27, 1799.
(a) The 35 Geo. 3. c. 15, (16th March 1795) reciting and confirming the orders
of council of the 16th and 21st of January (which allowed goods coming to ports
of this kingdom directly from any port of Holland, and navigated in any manner,
to be landed and secured in warehouses for the use of the proprietors till farther
orders,) enacts, that it shall be lawful to import such goods belonging to subjects
of the United Provinces, or to any who were subjects before the 19th of Jan. 1795,
or to any subject of His Majesty, to be landed and secured in warehouses for the
benefit of the proprietor, and for the security of the revenue. The subsequent
acts contain farther regulations fox property coming from Holland, in the ambiguous
situation of the two countries at that time.

146

THE 'HOOP 

I1C. ROB. 196.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most