CO129-446 - Others & Individuals - 1917 — Page 97

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

(~~)

In the case of foods which

are actually the property of persons or

firms on the Statutory List, forfeiture of

the goods, either under section 11 of Ordinance

No.22 of 1915 or under any local Ordinance

hereafter to be passed, would be inconsistent

with international law.

(a) The forfeiture of goods which are

the property of an "enemy" in the strict

sense under British law is legitimate,

but

such goods cannot be forfeited otherwise than

by the decision of a Prize Court.

(e) Goods which are the property of

a person or firm residing or carrying on

business in the British Empire and therefore

subject to British jurisdiction, and which are

obtained from, or destined for, an enemy,

or a person or firm on the Statutory List, can

consistently with international law, be forfeited by a Court, other than a Prize Court,

if the local law permits such a course.

(c) The principles laid down in the preceding paragraph (c) also apply in the case of

goods, which are the property of persons or

firms carrying on business in allied

territory, provided that the shipment

of the goods constitutes an offence

against the Trading with the Enemy laws

enforced by the Allied Governments concerned.

This proviso involves that,

before proceedings for the forfeiture

of the goods under the local law are

instituted, you should inform the Consul

for the Allied country concerned of the

situation, and ask him whether,

having

regard to the Trading with the Enemy laws

of his own country, he considers that

an application for forfeiture should be

made to the Court.

If the Consul has no objection the Colonial Government would

make arrangements for the institution

of proceedings in the ordinary way.

3.

I am advised that it follows

from these principles that the scope and

effect of section 11 are confined to

goods mentioned in (c) and (d) which

are obtained from, or destined for, an

enemy

Edit History

2026-06-14 01:16:36 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
(~~)In the case of foods whichare actually the property of persons orfirms on the Statutory List, forfeiture ofthe goods, either under section 11 of OrdinanceNo.22 of 1915 or under any local Ordinancehereafter to be passed, would be inconsistentwith international law.(a) The forfeiture of goods which arethe property of an "enemy" in the strictsense under British law is legitimate,butsuch goods cannot be forfeited otherwise thanby the decision of a Prize Court.(e) Goods which are the property ofa person or firm residing or carrying onbusiness in the British Empire and thereforesubject to British jurisdiction, and which areobtained from, or destined for, an enemy,or a person or firm on the Statutory List, canconsistently with international law, be forfeited by a Court, other than a Prize Court,if the local law permits such a course.(c) The principles laid down in the preceding paragraph (c) also apply in the case ofgoods, which are the property of persons orfirms carrying on business in alliedterritory, provided that the shipmentof the goods constitutes an offenceagainst the Trading with the Enemy lawsenforced by the Allied Governments concerned.This proviso involves that,before proceedings for the forfeitureof the goods under the local law areinstituted, you should inform the Consulfor the Allied country concerned of thesituation, and ask him whether,havingregard to the Trading with the Enemy lawsof his own country, he considers thatan application for forfeiture should bemade to the Court.If the Consul has no objection the Colonial Government wouldmake arrangements for the institutionof proceedings in the ordinary way.3.I am advised that it followsfrom these principles that the scope andeffect of section 11 are confined togoods mentioned in (c) and (d) whichare obtained from, or destined for, anenemy
Baseline (Original)
- . -(~~)In the case of foods whichare actually the property of persons orfirms on the Statutory List, forfeiture ofthe goods, either under section 11 of OrdinanceNo.22 of 1915 or under any local Ordinancehereafter to be passed, would be inconsistentwith international law.(a) The forfeiture of goods which arethe property of an "enemy" in the strictsense under British law is legitimate,butsuch goods cannot be forfeited otherwise thanby the decision of a Prize Court.(e) Goods which are the property ofa person or firm residing or carrying onbusiness in the British Expire and thereforesubject to British jurisdiction, and which areobtained from, or destined for, an enemy,or a person or firm on the Statutory List, canconsistently with international law, be for-feited by a Court, other than a Prize Court,if the local law permits such a course.(a) The principles laid down in the pre-ceding paragraph (c) also apply in the case ofgoods, which are the property of persons orfires95firms carrying on business in alliedterritory, provided that the shipmentof the goods constitutes an offenceagainst the Trading with the Enemy lawsenforced by the Allied Governments con-This proviso involves that,cerned.before proceedings for the forfeitureof the goods under the local law areinstituted, you should inform the Consulfor the Allied country concerned of thesituation, and ask him whether,havingregard to the Trading with the Enemy lawsof his own country, he considers thatan application for forfeiture should bemade tothe Court.If the Consul has noYou shows objection the Colonial Government wouldJmake arrangements for the institutionof proceedings in the ordinary way.3.I am advised that it followsfrom these principles that the scope andShould have beeneffect of section 11 are confined togoods mentioned in (c) and (d) whichare obtained from, or destined for, anenery
2026-06-14 01:16:36 · Baseline
View content

- . -

(~~)

In the case of foods which

are actually the property of persons or

firms on the Statutory List, forfeiture of

the goods, either under section 11 of Ordinance

No.22 of 1915 or under any local Ordinance

hereafter to be passed, would be inconsistent

with international law.

(a) The forfeiture of goods which are

the property of an "enemy" in the strict

sense under British law is legitimate,

but

such goods cannot be forfeited otherwise than

by the decision of a Prize Court.

(e) Goods which are the property of

a person or firm residing or carrying on

business in the British Expire and therefore

subject to British jurisdiction, and which are

obtained from, or destined for, an enemy,

or a person or firm on the Statutory List, can

consistently with international law, be for-

feited by a Court, other than a Prize Court,

if the local law permits such a course.

(a) The principles laid down in the pre-

ceding paragraph (c) also apply in the case of

goods, which are the property of persons or

fires

95

firms carrying on business in allied

territory, provided that the shipment

of the goods constitutes an offence

against the Trading with the Enemy laws

enforced by the Allied Governments con-

This proviso involves that,

cerned.

before proceedings for the forfeiture

of the goods under the local law are

instituted, you should inform the Consul

for the Allied country concerned of the

situation, and ask him whether,

having

regard to the Trading with the Enemy laws

of his own country, he considers that

an application for forfeiture should be

made tothe Court.

If the Consul has no You shows objection the Colonial Government would

J

make arrangements for the institution

of proceedings in the ordinary way.

3.

I am advised that it follows

from these principles that the scope and

Should have been effect of section 11 are confined to

goods mentioned in (c) and (d) which

are obtained from, or destined for, an

enery

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.