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

278 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [PART II seized after the proclamation of peace, and again after peace in du Toit v. Marais! it was held that the plaintiff could recover his stock in the hands of the defendant, who had been given them by the military authorities, as their action could not change the ownership of the stock. In Natal several important cases on martial law arose during the war of 1899-1902. In the case of Morcom v. Postmaster-General ® the question was raised whether it was within the power of the Postmaster-General, acting under martial-law regulations, to detain and open letters addressed to private individuals. The Court there held that martial law was in some cases justifiable, that acts of this kind in furtherance of military operations could be investigated by the Courts of Natal, and that they were justifiable in so far as real necessity existed. ‘This necessity they held to be proved by statements which were made by General Buller, that the opening of letters prevented information being received by the enemy, that in fact that when letters were opened he was able to carry out surprise movements which had been impossible when letters were not opened, and they therefore declined to give the plaintiff Morcom the relief for which he asked. In the case of Umbilini and others v. the General Officer Commanding ® the question was raised whether the Court had any right to interfere with the decision of an adminis- trator of martial law, and the Court decided that it could so interfere, but when the case actually came on for considera- tion it also decided that it would not interfere. It held that the treatment of the two natives in that case who were punished for being spies was reasonable and proper in view of the necessities of war. Subsequent to these cases was the Cape case decided on appeal to the Privy Council in re Maraist That case, the judgement in which is unhappily too brief to be satisfactory and not without ambiguity, established as a binding rule that when war was actually proceeding civil Courts must not in- terfere: but it cannot be said to have done more than this. ' (1904) 13 C. T. R. 139. ® (1900) 21 N. L. R. 32. * (1900) 21 N. L. R. 86 and 169. ¢ [1902] A. C. 109.

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