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 III. The Parliaments of the Dominions

Collection:: Economics Books

cap. 11] LIMITATION OF LEGISLATION 375 down that, whatever might be the power of the Imperial Parliament, no Colonial Legislature could bind persons resident outside the territory, and he instanced the fact that difficulty had always arisen when it was sought to establish a Colonial navy because of the limited extent of Colonial jurisdiction. It was decided by the Supreme Court of New Zealand in re Gleick! that the Colonial Legislature had no power to authorize the conveyance on the high sea to another Colony, and the detention outside its own jurisdiction of any person whatsoever, such power requiring Imperial authority. On the other hand, Higinbotham J., in the Victorian case of Regina v. Call, ex parte Murphy? declared that though as a matter of abstract speculation the Legislature of Victoria might have no authority outside the Colonial limits, still its enactments were binding on all Colonial Courts in Victoria. Other early cases on this question affect the attempt to give effect to criminal laws of a Colony beyond the territorial limits. Thus in Regina v. Brierly 3 it was held by the Chancery Division of Ontario that a Canadian law was valid which made it an offence for a British subject resident in Canada to commit bigamy anywhere, provided that he had left Canada in order to commit the offence. But this case was overruled or dissented from by the Queen’s Bench of Ontario in Regina v. Plowman, on the strength of Macleod v. Attorney- General for New South Wales’ and it is impossible to follow Mr. Lefroy ® in his ingenious attempt to distinguish the cases by the fact that the enactment of New South Wales did not restrict its operation to British subjects resident in that Colony as did the Act of Canada. The whole question was elaborately considered by the 10. B. &F. S.C. 79; New Zealand Parl. Pap., 1880, A. 6. * 7V. L. R. 113, at p. 123; cf. also Reg. v. Pearson, 6 V.L R. 333; Lefroy, op. cit., p. 263, note 1; above, p. 170, note 1. : 1 (1887) 14 O. R. 525; 4 Cart. 665. Cf. Reg. v. Giles, 15 C. L. J. 178. } (1894) 25 O. R. 656. 5 [1891] A. C. 455. Cf. Reg. v. Mount, 6 P. C. 283; Low v. Routledge, 1 Ch. App. 42; Reg. v. Keyn, 2 Ex. D. 63. ¢ Op. cit., pp. 336-8.

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