L'évolution industrielle de la Belgique

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 1)

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1029903786

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-63471

Document type:: Monograph

Author:: Lewiński, Jan S. http://d-nb.info/gnd/102701059

Title:: L'évolution industrielle de la Belgique

Place of publication:: Bruxelles

Publisher:: Misch & Thron, Éditeurs

Year of publication:: 1911

Scope:: 1 Online-Ressource (XIII, 444 Seiten)

Digitisation:: 2018

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Seconde partie

Collection:: Economics Books

282 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [PART I received favourable consideration by the Court. A further attempt was made to bring an appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court of Natal cited above, and the Privy Council naturally held that the Act of Indemnity was conclusive, and to mark their disapproval of bringing the case again in this form condemned the appellant to pay the costs of the Attorney-General of Natal! From these cases it appears, therefore, fairly certain that the civil Courts still retain power to inquire whether war is raging, but that if they find war is raging they must not exercise their juris- diction in any matter where the existence of war is urged as a reason for barring their action. This of course leaves them free to take whatever action is necessary when the war is over, and the consciousness of this state of affairs evidently weighed with the Government of Natal in declining to withdraw martial law until after the Indemnity Act had received the royal assent. It cannot be said that the situa- tion is very satisfactory, and it may be added that no case has yet disposed of the clear difficulty that a Governor or other officer who takes steps under martial law may be tried in England either under the statutes of 1699 and 1802, or under the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, s. 9 of which renders justiciable in the United Kingdom offences of murder or manslaughter wherever committed by a British subject. Fortunately, it seems clear that this enactment does not give power to demand action under the Fugitive Offen- ders Act, 1881, but it is clear also that an act of indemnity could not be pleaded in bar of an Imperial statute, and there is some force in the protest that was made by the New Zealand Ministry and Governor in 1869, that the position of a Governor acting on the advice of his responsible ministers in such a case would be unsatisfactory and abnormal.? ' [1907] A. C. 461. * Bee Parl. Pap., H. C. 307, 1869, p. 400; C. 83, pp. 33, 191. The Imperial Government disposed of the matter somewhat lightly by thinking that the case of Eyre showed that an indemnity act barred action in England. But that applied only to civil liability, not to criminal liability, and Eyre’s law costs were very heavy, and had to be defrayed by a committee of supporters.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 1)

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation