Kameralwissenschaften und vergleichende Betriebswirtschaftslehre

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 1)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1780159447

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Marx, Karl http://d-nb.info/gnd/118578537

Title:: Das Kapital

Place of publication:: Berlin

Publisher:: J. H. W. Dietz Nachf., G. m. b. H.

Year of publication:: 1926-

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Volume

Identifikator:: 1780159595

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-188277

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Marx, Karl http://d-nb.info/gnd/118578537

Title:: Der Produktionsprozeß des Kapitals

Volume count:: 1.1928

Place of publication:: Berlin

Publisher:: J. H. W. Dietz Nachf., G. m. b. H.

Year of publication:: 1928

Scope:: XLVIII, 768 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Dritter Abschnitt. Die Produktion des absoluten Mehrwertes

Collection:: Economics Books

376 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [PART III Supreme Court in the case in re Criminal Code, Bigamy Sections. The Code of 1892 by ss. 275, 276, punished bigamy committed anywhere by any British subject who left Canada for the purpose. The validity of the enactment was upheld by four judges, Gwynne, Sedgewick, King, and Girouard. The last-named judge rested his decision on the highest grounds: the Dominion Parliament was, he said, a subordinate legislature, but subordinate only to the Imperial Parlia- ment, and it had all the legislative authority of the Imperial Parliament so long as it did not contravene the positive prohibition of repugnancy enacted by the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865; and the other judges held that at any rate the actual exercise of power in this case, one of a Canadian resident, was justified, adopting the view that Macleod’s case depended on the wideness of the terms of the Act. On the other hand, the Chief Justice pronounced the sections invalid, and held that the limitation of the Act to cases of persons who left Canada for the purpose of committing bigamy did not render it valid. He cited Macleod’s case as decisive of the view, and reminded the Court of his judgement in Peek v. Shields? in which he had held that an act committed in England could not be an offence under the insolvency law of Canada? It seems probable that in the actual decision the majority of the Court were right and the Chief Justice wrong, but only on the ground that the offence penalized was leaving Canada with intent. Clearly the law could punish any leaving of Canada—the crime is committed at latest at the last moment of departure within the territory —and if it punished sub modo the fact that the act which proved the intent was done elsewhere could not be said to invalidate the penalty on the leaving. In one very interesting case, The Ship ‘DD. C. Whitney’ v. 8t. Clair Navigation Co.* the question was whether Canadian ' 27 8. C. R. 461. * 88. C.R. 579. ' Overruling the Ontario Appeal Court decision in 6 O. A. R. 639: 3 Cart. 283. + (1907) 38 8. C. R. 303, on appeal from the Exchequer Court, Toronto Admiralty Division, 10 Ex. C. R. 1.

Access restriction

Copyright

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

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation