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

cuap. 11] THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR ~~ 145 a fiat could no doubt be granted in every case. But a fiab sould also certainly be granted, and the case heard in England. On the other hand, it does not seem that a fiat could be granted for the hearing in England of a case against the Crown in its Colonial capacity. This case illustrates the fact that the Crown possesses in the Colonies all its English prerogatives, save in so far as they are diminished by legislation expressly or tacitly necessarily excluding them, even if they cannot be exercised by the Governor. This has been laid down in express terms by the Privy Council in the case of The Liquidators of the Maritime Bank of Canada v. The Receiver General of New Brunswick? Thus it has been held that in a Colony the right to a felon’s goods attaches ? the priority in bankruptcy and * See Holmes v. The Queen (1861), 31 L. J. Ch. 58 ; Palmer v. Hutchinson (1881), 6 App. Cas. 619; Frith v. The Queen (1872), 7 Ex. 365. The first case is cited with approval by the High Court in Strachan v. The Common- wealth, 4 C. L. R. 455, at p. 463. Dinuzulu’s case is hardly an exception, for the Imperial Government assumed that it was liable for the debt ; Parl. Pap., Cd. 4194, p. 115. Similarly, the Crown is exempt from having its vessels seized for damage done or for lability for salvage (sce Young v. 8.8. Scotia, [1903] A. C. 501). If any action is brought which does not fall within the terms of a statute, it must fail (Colonial Government v. Makuza, 27 N. L. R. 493; Methuen v. Colonial Government, 17 N. L. R. 31; Binda v. Attorney-General, 5S. C. 284, all cases of claims in tort). A fiat is granted under the Colonial Acts a8 a rule of course (asin Canada : see Mr. Aylesworth in House of Commons, May 15, 1909 and December 15, 1909, Debates, xcii. 6751; xciit. 1554-6), and the Government will give effect to the decision loyally. Cf. also Rex v. Fisher, [1903] A. C. 158, at p. 167, where it was held in a case of petition of right that it was no answer to a claim that no appropriation was included ‘nan Act. [1892] A. C. 437. * Cf. in re Bateman's Trust, 15 Eq. 355. This was of course prior to 1870, when by 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23 forfeiture for felony was abolished in England. It has also been abolished in the Colonies. * New South Wales Taxation Commissioners v. Palmer, [1907] A. C. 179; Attorney-General of New South Wales v. Curator of Intestate Estates, [1907] A.C. 519. These overrule in re Baynes, 9 Queens. L. J. 33; Clarkson v. Attorney-General of Canada, 15 0. R. 632; 16 0. A. R. 202, and the opinion in 1900 8. A. L. R. 11. The Imperial Bankruptcy Act, 46 & 47 Vict. c. 82, bars the prerogative by its express terms. 1279

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