attempted to be covered by the Messrs.
Montgomery, is shipped by Montgomery Bros. of New York, and consigned to
Montgomery Bros., in Belfast; and the title to the property, so far as
appears in the bill of lading, is in the latter house, or in the branch
house in New York. Further, the mere formal papers of a ship and cargo
prove nothing, unless properly verified, and in this case the master of
the ship, although a part owner of the ship, whose duty it was upon
taking in a cargo in time of war, to be informed of all the
circumstances attending it, and connected with the ownership, knew
nothing, except what he learned from the face of the papers. These
certificates, therefore, were pronounced a fraud, and the cargo as well
as the ship, condemned. 3d Phillimore 610-12 to the effect, that if the
goods are going for account of the shipper, _or subject to his order or
control_ (as in this case), the property is not divested _in transitu_.
The goods shipped by Craig and Nicoll, were consigned to their _order_,
as has been seen.

As to the Montgomery's, see 3rd Phillimore 605, to the effect that if a
person be a partner in a house of trade in an enemy's country, he is, as
to the concerns and trade of that house, deemed an enemy, and his share
is liable to confiscation as such, notwithstanding his own residence is
in a neutral country. Further, the property consigned to Montgomery
Bros., even admitting the Belfast house not to be a partner in the New
York house, is liable to the same objection, as in the case of Craig and
Nicoll; since, although the property is described as belonging to a
party in Sligo, there is no bill of lading among the papers authorizing
that party to demand the possession. The property is not divested,
therefore, _in transitu_.

3rd Phillimore, 599, to the effect, that "further proof" is always
necessary when the master cannot swear to the ownership of the property
(as in this case). And as I cannot send my prizes in for adjudication, I
must of necessity condemn in all cases where "further proof" is
necessary, since the granting of "further proof" proceeds on the
presumption that the neutrality of the cargo is not sufficiently
established; and where the neutrality of the property does not fully
appear from the ship's papers and the master's deposition, I had the
right to act upon the presumption of enemy's property.

By midnight the Lafayette showed only a dim glare on the distant
horizon, but the eve