25

H.—25

seized at Antwerp. Alternatively they claimed the proceeds of the sale of the wheat whether in the hands of the German company above mentioned or the Treuhander, or such person as the proceeds of sale were paid or credited to. The German Government based its opposition io this claim on the Tesdorpf and Ralli Bros, cases, contending that what occurred in Belgium amounted to a forcible seizure or requisition, but the claimants relied only on an alleged forced sale out of which arose a debt due to them from the German company, and claimed compensation based on the faet that the amount of the debt had been placed to their credit by the Getreide Commission, and that, but for the fact that there were then in force the German decrees forbidding the export of money or securities to the United Kingdom, they would have received the money. They disclaimed compensation based on the seizure at Antwerp. _ The Tribunal rejected the contention of the German Government, accepting the view that the dealings with the grain were carried out on the footing of a civil transaction in which the claimants were treated as vendors, and the Getreide Commission as their agents. The proceeds of the sale, less commission, were treated as a debt due to the claimants by the Getreide Commission. They accordingly decided that they had jurisdiction to deal with the claim, and came to the conclusion that the only legal obstacle to the settlement of the debt was the fact that the decree of 30th September, 1914, prohibiting payment to Great Britain was then in force. This decree was abrogated as from 11th January, 1920, and, in the opinion of the tribunal, The respondents were entitled to receive compensation for any depreciation suffered bv their property as from the date after the 11th January, 1920, when they were able to collect the money. This date the Tribunal fixed at 20th January, 1920. They accordingly awarded the claimants compensation under Article 297 (e) based on depreciation of the mark, together with compensation for loss of use at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum. In Antony Gibbs & Son v. German Government (No. 120), (Recueil, iv, p. 229), and Venesta Ltd. v. German Government (No. 852) attempts were made to show that the cases came within the principle of the last-cited case of Ford, and to distinguish Ralli Bros., but such attempts proved unsuccessful. (21.) Reversionary Rights of British Beneficiaries under German Settlement. The question of the rights of British beneficiaries having reversionary rights under a settlement of a German whose property was liquidated under exceptional war measures came before the Tribunal in Dewhurst v. German Government (No. 447), (Recueil, iv, p. 1). A German testator had left property to certain British nationals subject to the life interest of a German national. During the war the estate was liquidated, and the proceeds were paid to the Treuhander. The Tribunal held that the capacity and nationality of the trustees, who were German; did not prevent the British beneficiaries from claiming under Article 297 (h), although they had not the free disposal of the estate, but that the value of the German life tenant's interest would have to be deducted from the proceeds of liquidation, and the valuation was accordingly directed on the basis of the age of the life tenant at the date of sale. At a further hearing of the case the respondents contended that Article 297 (h) does not apply to cash assets subject to encumbrances of successive interests or to an administration under a trust. The Tribunal, however, held that the British beneficiaries were entitled as a consequence of the liquidation to receive the proceeds, and that it was for the British authority distributing to see that the trusts of the will were given effect to. (22.) Claims under Article 297 of the Treaty of Versailles—Extent of Interference by German Treuhander with Assets claimed. Much difficulty has been experienced by British nationals, to whom debts were owing in Germany at the outbreak of war, in ascertaining against whom their true remedy lies in cases where there has been an interference with the debt or a portion thereof by the German Treuhander. The latter was in the habit of giving notice to the debtor that he took under his administration the claim of the British national in question, but while in some cases the debt was actually credited to and placed in the name of the Treuhander, in other cases it was stated to have been notified to the Treuhander for so-called statistical purposes. In the case of W. Fletcher & Sons v. German Government (No. 609), (Recueil, iii, p. 755), the debtor in Germany, who was, however, a Czechoslovak national, notified a debt of £4,382 Bs. 4d. to the Treuhander in 1917. On the 9th January, 1918, the Treuhander gave notice to the debtor that he took under his administration the claim of the British claimant for the sum in question, and that he debited the debtor accordingly. The latter was therefore debited with interest and called upon to pay the amount of the past interest, though not the capital. This, together with further interest from time to time, was paid over by the debtor, and the amount thereof was credited to the claimants under Article 297, the principal sum remaining uncollected. The British national claimed compensation for the damage inflicted on his property arising from the exceptional war measures—viz., the decrees prohibiting payment during the war to a British national, the decrees setting up the office of Treuhander, and the notice of 9th January, 1918, from the Treuhander taking the claim under his administration, which the claimants contended deprived them of their rights against the debtor. The Tribunal, however, held that this letter did not extinguish the claimants' rights against the debtor, for its effect came to an end on the coming into force of the Treaty, the Treuhander's action amounting to no more than an incompleted liquidation. The claimants would be entitled to compensation if they had suffered damage by reason of the decrees forbidding exportation of money, or by reason of the Treuhander's measure. The Tribunal could not, however, express an opinion as to this until the claimants had exhausted their remedies against their original debtor, and they accordingly stayed the proceedings with liberty to reinstate, in order to give the claimants an opportunity of so doing. In the case of Posselt v. German Government (No. 493) the British claimant was entitled to a share in four houses in Germany. Under her instructions the rents received were credited to her by a German bank, where she had an account before the war. The Treuhander in 1918 took the bank balance under his administration and informed the bank as follows: " I therefore debit you with the said amount at the value of to-day, and at the same time credit the above-mentioned person accordingly." The Treuhander did not collect interest, because the interest was used under the claimant's instructions for payment of life-insurance premiums. It was contended on behalf of the claimant that this was a complete liquidation ; but the Tribunal held that the case was similar to that of Fletcher v. German Government above mentioned, and that the moneys in question were not monevs which had come into the hands of the Treuhander, and so in accordance with the previous decision in Saunders v. German Government (No. 158), (Recueil, ii, p. 698), could not be treated as cash assets. The claimant was, however, held entitled to compensation under Article 297 (e) if she could prove that she had suffered damage by the action of the Treuhander or the decrees prohibiting payments to British nationals. In the case of Westondarp & Granville v. German Government (No. 426), (Recueil, iv, p. 239), the claimants entitled to a share on the death of a life tenant of an estate in Germany. The Treuhander informed the German executor that he intended to take the share under his administration. Nothing further was done in the matter, and in February, 1922, the executor asked permission to pay the claimants. The Treuhander replied that the estate had never been taken into his administration. Other beneficiaries had received payment in 1916. The Tribunal held that, the executor having allocated the securities for the claimants' share and realized them, distribution would have been made to the claimants in 1916 but for the German decree of the 30th September, 1914, prohibiting payments to Fngland. The claimants were therefore entitled to compensation for depreciation of the mark up to the date on which the funds might have come into the claimants' hands consequent upon the decree having been abrogated. This abrogation took place as from the 11th January, 1920, and, as the Treuhander had never taken the property into his administration, it was not necessary for the executor to await his release, and payment could have been effected by the 15th March, 1920, The depreciation was therefore to be fixed as at that date.

4—H. 25.