The Representatives of Peter Webster, deceased, - Appellants; an Award of the Commissioners for the Liquidation of the Claims of British Subjects on France
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 1834 |
| Date | 21 June 1834 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 12 E.R. 532
Privy Council
Mews' Dig. tit. War; 4. War Indemnity; In respect of what matters. See Pilkington v. Commissioners for Claims on France, 1834, 2 Knapp, 13.
n knapp, 386 webster's case [1834] [386] WEBSTER'S CASE. The REPRESENTATIVES OF PETER WEBSTER, deceased,-Appellants; an AWARD of the COMMISSIONERS for the LIQUIDATION of the CLAIMS of BRITISH SUBJECTS on PRANCE* [June 21, 1834]. Lnder a treaty providing compensation for losses of moveable and immoveable property unduly confiscated, held, that no compensation was provided for confiscations of immoveable property out of the territory of one of the contracting powers. Peter Webster was the owner of a house in the French part of the island of St. Martin's, and of a plantation in the Dutch part of it. Both of these were taken possession of and retained by the French authorities, under the same circumstances, and for the same time, as the property of Colonel Gumbes, and which are mentioned in the case immediately preceding this. Mr. Webster's representatives claimed compensation for his losses from the Commissioners, and they granted it them in respect of the sequestration, of his property in the- French part of the island, but refused it them in respect of the sequestration of that in the Dutch. Lushington (Dr.) and Teed, for the Appellants.-The claimant is clearly entitled to compensation for the injury he sustained by the sequestration of his property in the Dutch territory, according to the principles laid down by Sir William Grant, in his judgment in Pilkington's case (ante [2 Knapp], p. 13). He there says, " the Treaty of [387] 1814 proceeds on the assumption that the sequestration or confiscation of British property was an improper and unjustifiable act; an illegal act it could hardly be said to be, because it was the act of that which was at the time a sovereign power. The expression used is ' indument confisques.' Now property may be said to be indument confisque with reference to the treaty of 1786, with reference to the modern usages of nations at war, or with reference to the conduct of this country towards the subjects of France." We do not contend that the property in the Dutch part of the island was indument confisque with reference to the treaty of 1786 [see 2 Knapp, 7], for that treaty only...
To continue reading
Request your trial