It was alleged by the captors that the ship’s papers were not in proper form, and that besides the flour and other foodstuffs she carried a consignment of lubricating oil for the Netherlands South African Railway.  This consignment was held to be enemy’s property since it was considered that the railway belonged to the Transvaal, the specific charge against the ship being that of trading with the enemy.  The fact that a consignment of flour was billed to a Lorenzo Marques firm but labelled “Z.A.R.” created a conclusive presumption, it was thought, that the flour was intended for the Transvaal, although its owners claimed that the consignment was not destined for the belligerent Republic but for local consumption at Lorenzo Marques.[15]

[Footnote 15:  For.  Rel., 1900, pp. 538-539, 561.]

Both the cargo consigned to the Transvaal and the vessel herself were claimed as lawful prize.  The cargo, it was contended, was unprotected since it was enemy’s property, and the vessel, by trading with the enemy, had violated a regulation which rendered it confiscable.  Against this it was urged that the consignees were hostile only by reason of domicile, and that neither the owners of the ship nor the captain had any intention to trade with the enemy.  So far as intention was concerned, it was shown that the captain had intended to pass a bond at Algoa Bay, one of the ports of call, undertaking not to deliver the goods at Delagoa Bay without the permission of the proper authorities.  The three judges of the Supreme Court of Cape Colony sitting as a prize court came to different conclusions.  The Chief Justice held that the cargo should be condemned but not the ship.  One opinion was that neither ship nor cargo should be condemned; the third that both ship and cargo should be condemned.  There were thus two justices to one for condemning the cargo and two to one against the condemnation of the ship.  The cargo was consequently condemned and the ship released.[16]

[Footnote 16:  Decision at Cape Town, March 13, 1900, reported in Cape Times, March 14, 1900.]

Different views were also held by the judges with reference to the condemnation of the goods aboard the Mashona.  The Chief Justice held that the intention of the captain to alter the destination of the goods was sufficiently established to prevent their condemnation.  The other justices dissented on this point.  They held that the goods should be regarded in prize law as the property of residents of the Transvaal, and that such ownership did not seem possible of denial.  In their opinion there was sufficient reason for condemning the goods since they were enemy’s property captured on the high sea in a non-neutral ship.