CHAP. III] JUDICIAL APPEALS 1385 
refer directly to the Privy Council, but the question has 
been fought out in the High Court of Australia, and now 
an appeal will be brought from the decision to the Judicial 
Committee. 
In the case of the prohibitory liquor laws legislation of 
Canada the views of the Supreme Court were referred to the 
Privy Council for advice, and an opinion was reluctantly 
given.? In all such cases the Judicial Committee is unwilling 
to deal with hypothetical instances, even on appeal, from 
the Supreme Court of Canada, just as that Court is unwilling 
to decide cases ex hypothesi. None the less, the Court has 
decided several most important points in this manner, includ- 
ing the question of fishery powers ;® the position is curious, 
for the decisions of the Supreme Court in these cases are 
extra-judicial, though an appeal is allowed. No case has 
yet thus been decided on appeal from a Provincial Court. It 
is otherwise as regards Australia ; the Commonwealth Act, 
No. 34 of 1910, contemplates full judicial weight being 
accorded to the decisions of the Court.’ 
' For other cases of reference cf. in re Wallace, 1 P. C. 283 ; in re Pollard, 
2 P, C. 106; MacDermott v. Judges of British Guiana, ibid., 341; on re 
Ramsay, 3 P. C. 427; Emerson v. Judges of Supreme Court of Newfoundland, 
8 Moo. P. C. 157 ; Smith v. Justices of Sterra Leone, TMoo. P. C. 174 (cases 
of relations of attorneys and justices); Atforney-General of Queensland v. 
Gibbon, 12 App. Cas. 442 (vacation of seats of Legislative Council, Queens- 
land, above, p. 1375, n. 5); Cloete v. Reg., 8 Moo. P. C. 484 (removal of 
recorder in Natal under Ordinance No. 14 of 1845) ; Malta marriage case, 
Parl. Pap., Cd. 7982. 
* Cf. Bourinot, Constitution of Canada, p. 105 ; [1896] A. C. 348. 
' {1898] A. C. 700. 
! Cf. Wheeler, Confederation Law, pp. 394, 395, 401, 402, 405, 406. 
' In Bruce v. Commonwealth Trade Marks Label Association, 4 C. L. R. 
1569, the High Court declined to decide the abstract question of the 
validity of Part VII of the Trade Marks Act, 1905; see Harrison Moore, 
Commonwealth of Australia,’ pp. 394 seq. It may be added that the 
Privy Council is not bound by its own judgements of necessity, differing 
from the House of Lords. For cases of conflict with the Court of Appeal 
in England, of. Victoria Railway Commissioners v. Coultas and Wife, 
13 App. Cas. 222, with Pugh v. London, Brighton, and South Coast 
Railway Co., [1896] 2 Q. B. 248 ; Wilkinson v. Downlon, [18971 2 Q. B. 57, 
and cf, 3 App. Cas. 115 with 4 App. Cas. 324.