The Anichab (no 1)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 1921 |
| Date | 13 December 1921 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 344 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Lords Sumner, Parmoor, Wrenbury, and Sir Arthur Channell
The Anichab and other Vessels
The RoumanianDID=ASPM 13 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 8 114 L. T. Rep. 3 (1916) 1 A. C. 124
Naval Prize Act 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 25), s. 34
Fourth Hague Convention 1907, art. 53.
Prize Property of enemy Maritime prize
Judgment of Lord Sterndale, P. (reported 14 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 538; 122 L. T. Rep. 249; (1919) P. 323) affirmed.
MARITIME LAW CASES 441 Priv. Co.] The Aniohab and other Vessels. Priv. Co. Oct. 27 and Dec. 13, 1931. (Present: Lords Sumner, Parmoor, Wrenb - ry, and !Sir Arthur Cuanneli..) The Aniohab and other Vessels. (a) ON APPEAI, FROM THE PRIZE COURT, ENGLAND. Prize Propertij of enemy Maritime prize Lighters and traft seized afloat Lighters and traft seized when bcached Lighters and traft seized on land Removal to avoid caplure Military and naval Operations " Hot pursnit " Nature of Operations right to damages for wrongful seizure- Jurisdiction of court Naval Prize Act 1864 (27 ?? 28 Vicl. c. 25), s. 34 Fourth Hague Convention 1907, art. 33i. A number of enemy-owned tugs, lighters, and other craft, as well as a quanlity of material, were seized by the British forces during the course of the campan in South West Africa in 1914 and 1915. Some of the. seizures took place in two ports which were occupied by the British fortes, part of the, trafr being afloat and a part being beached, some below and some. abore high water mark: pon the approach of the British forces part of the traft was moved island, and was cventually seized some "ix months later at the plces which were respectively 148 and 310 milm distant from the coast. The. Crown chaimed condemnation of the whole. Held, that the captures of properly made inland by military forces did not subject such properly to condemnailion as maritime prize, and it was ?? that the property thus seized might subsequently be used under conditions which would subject it, if so used, to condemnation as maritime prize. Judgment of Lord Sierndak, P. (reported 14 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 538; 122 L. T. Rep. 249; (1919)P.323) affi?? Appeat. from a judgment of Lord Sterndalc, p. (reported 14 Asp. Mar. law Cas. 536; 122 L. T. rep. 219); (1919) p 329). This was an action in which the Crown asked for the condemnation of a certain numbcr of tugs, lighters, and other craft and material belonging to the enemy. During the campaign in German south-west Africa in 1914 and 191.5 the enemy territory was invaded and the ports of Swakopmund and Luderitzbucht were occupied. These ports (a) Reported by Edward J. M. Chaplin, Esq., Barrister. at Law. 442 MARITIME LAW CASES. Priv. Co.] The Anichab and other Vessels. [Priv. Co. are respectively north and south of Walfisch Bay. Prior to the war the Woermann Line, which was a German steamship Company, did oonaiderable trade with South Africa generally, and at the porta named the Company had a number of ?? , lighters, and other craft of various sizes which were uaed for the purpose of loading and discharging the German liners and of taking passengers and goods to and from the same. There was also at these ports a quantity of other property, such as buoys and rope fenders, also enemy property, some belonging to the Woermann Line and some belonging to other persona. When the ports of Swakopmund and L - deritz ?? were occupied, some of the craft were afloat, same were beached below high water mark, whilst hers were beached above high-water mark. The whole of these were seized. But a number of the craft, upon the approach of the British forces, were taken inland by the Germans in order to avoid capture. They were found some six months later at two places Omaruru and Otavi which were respectively 148 and 310 miles distant from the coast when they were seized by the military forces The Crown claimed condemnation of the whole as prize, whilst the Woormann Line asked for the release of that part of the craft and material which was their property on the ground that it was not liable to condemnation bv international law. The President Leid that all the captures made in the ports, either ?? or beached above or below high water mark, was good and lawful prize, but that upon the evidence the captures made inland were not made in " hot pursuit, and the claimants were entitled to have the craft so seized released, but that no damages could be awarded for wrongful seizure, such matters being subject to settement by diplomatic action after the peace. | The Procurator General appealed. Wylie (Sir Gordon Hewart (A.G.) with him) for the appellant, ex parte. The considered judgment of their Lordships was delivered by Lord Parmoos.This is an appeal against the decree of the Prize Court releasing certain craft, namely, sixteen lighters, and one launch and certain rope fenders, the property of the respondents, captured at Otavi and Omaruru, then in Germon South West Africa, by His Majesty's military forces. No case was presented on behalf of the respondents, and the appeal of His Majesty's Procurator General was heard ex parte. The question to be decirded on the appeal is whether at the time of their capture the said craft had ceased to be the subject of maritime prize, and were private propert seized on land by His Majesty's military ??. His Majesty's military forces, operating under the?? of the Union of South ?? South West Africa, occupied ?? ?? Bay) on the 19th Sept.?? on the 14th Jan. 1915. A ??. craft, and accessories seized ?? Swakop mund were ?? President as good and lawful ?? A ?? this decision there is no appesl. ?? has found in ?? of Sir Oswyn Murray that the ?? in.estion in this appeal were found and ?? 2. partly at Omaruru, 148 miles inland, when ?? was occupied on the 20th Juno 1913 and ?? at Otavi, 310 miles inland, when Otavi was oecupied on the 1st July 1915. There are no rivera in South West Africa on which the said craft could have been or were intended to be used, and they had been dispatched up the railway line at the request of the respondents, under the authority of a German officer, in order to prevent them f - llig into the hands of the British forces. It is not disputed that they were property the subject of maritime prize at the declaration of the war, and at that time liable to seizure. The craft were first taken on rail to Richtofen, 12 miles inland, during August and September, 1914, and were then taken by rail to Usakos, 94 miles inland; during Oct. 1914, where they remained till Maren 1915. They were forwarded to Omaruru and Otavi during April 1915, and were left standing on rail near the railway Stations...
To continue reading
Request your trial