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

car. v] THE GOVERNOR AND THE LAW 279 and any inference drawn from the wording of the decision that the civil Courts must be satisfied with an allegation that war is proceeding is negatived by the language used by Lord Halsbury himself in the subsequent case of Tilonko Another case of importance was decided by the Privy Council on appeal from a decision above mentioned of the Supreme Court of the Cape—The Attorney-General for the Cape of Good Hope v. van Reenen® In that case a magis- trate who was acting as an administrator of martial law had sentenced van Reenen for a breach of martial-law regulations, but the papers did not clearly show that he had acted in his capacity as an administrator of martial law. With a view to removing any ambiguity on this question the Supreme Court reversed the decision as far as it was given by the magistrate as such.? On the other hand, the Privy Council reversed the decision of the Supreme Court. They insisted that the decision was purely one given by the magistrate as administrator of martial law. There was no record as in civil cases to be reversed, and the decision should not have been reversed, for it was agreed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Cape that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to deal with or to affect the judgement of martial- law Courts. It should be noted that this decision does not in any way invalidate the view expressed in the Court below that the Supreme Court could inquire into matters done during martial law when the war was no longer raging—and but for the Indemnity Act passed in the Cape no doubt the Supreme Court would have exercised freely such powers. In Natal, on the occurrence of the Native Rebellion of 1906, the effect of these decisions was clearly seen in the attitude adopted by the Court. In the case of Msolo and Guwana v. Rex d the Court held that they had no jurisdiction to review the judgement of the magistrate given when acting in his capacity as special administrator under martial law, even though the records showed that the proceedings took place in the Martial Law Court and Magistrate’s Court, it [1907] A. C. 93, at p. 95. » (1903) 12 C. T. R. 557. ® [1904] A. C. 114. 4 (1906) 26 N. L. R. 421,

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