Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 1)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896934455

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-236504

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 1

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: LI, 568 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part II. The executive Government

Collection:: Economics Books

140 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [PART II an action would lie against a Colonial Governor for wrongful acts done by him. But it by no means followed that because a Governor was liable to an action for a wrongful act done by him to the prejudice of an individual, he was liable to be commanded by a mandamus to repair an omission to do a lawful act. It was settled law that a mandamus would not lie against an officer of the Crown to compel him to do an act which he ought to do as agent for the Crown, unless he also omitted a separate duty to the individual seeking the remedy. They did not think that a Governor of a state in the issue of a writ for the election of a senator was acting as agent for the Sovereign in this sense, since the duty imposed by the constitution was imposed by statute law and not by delegation from the Sovereign himself. But it was a duty cast upon him as head of the state, and the same reasons which prevented a court of law from ordering the Sovereign to perform a constitutional duty were applicable to cases where it was alleged that the constitutional head of a state had by his omission failed in the performance of 3 duty imposed upon him as such head of a state. A further case of an attempt to obtain a mandamus against a Governor arose in the case of Horwitz v. Connor, decided by the High Court in 1908. Horwitz had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment with hard labour, and he claimed that he was entitled to his release from jail by virtue of s. 540 of the Victoria Crimes Act, 1890, pursuant to which regulations had been made by the Governor in Council for the remission of sentences under which a prisoner, on earning a certain number of marks in proportion to the length of his sentence, might have a portion of the sentence remitted. He applied for a writ of Habeas Corpus to the Supreme Court of Victoria, but on the return of the writ the full Court held that he was not entitled to be released, and discharged the writ. The Court decided that the power given to the Governor in Council by s. 540 of the Crimes Act, 1890, was a dis- cretionary power to make regulations, and to mitigate or ' 6 C. L. R. 39.

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