278 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [PART II 
seized after the proclamation of peace, and again after peace 
in du Toit v. Marais! it was held that the plaintiff could 
recover his stock in the hands of the defendant, who had been 
given them by the military authorities, as their action could 
not change the ownership of the stock. 
In Natal several important cases on martial law arose 
during the war of 1899-1902. In the case of Morcom v. 
Postmaster-General ® the question was raised whether it was 
within the power of the Postmaster-General, acting under 
martial-law regulations, to detain and open letters addressed 
to private individuals. The Court there held that martial 
law was in some cases justifiable, that acts of this kind in 
furtherance of military operations could be investigated by 
the Courts of Natal, and that they were justifiable in so far as 
real necessity existed. ‘This necessity they held to be proved 
by statements which were made by General Buller, that the 
opening of letters prevented information being received by the 
enemy, that in fact that when letters were opened he was able 
to carry out surprise movements which had been impossible 
when letters were not opened, and they therefore declined to 
give the plaintiff Morcom the relief for which he asked. 
In the case of Umbilini and others v. the General Officer 
Commanding ® the question was raised whether the Court 
had any right to interfere with the decision of an adminis- 
trator of martial law, and the Court decided that it could so 
interfere, but when the case actually came on for considera- 
tion it also decided that it would not interfere. It held that 
the treatment of the two natives in that case who were 
punished for being spies was reasonable and proper in view 
of the necessities of war. 
Subsequent to these cases was the Cape case decided on 
appeal to the Privy Council in re Maraist That case, the 
judgement in which is unhappily too brief to be satisfactory 
and not without ambiguity, established as a binding rule that 
when war was actually proceeding civil Courts must not in- 
terfere: but it cannot be said to have done more than this. 
' (1904) 13 C. T. R. 139. ® (1900) 21 N. L. R. 32. 
* (1900) 21 N. L. R. 86 and 169. ¢ [1902] A. C. 109.