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

380 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [PART III Natal,! under its inherent jurisdiction, and not, as of course it might have done, under the Imperial Acts which were not cited. There are other cases sometimes cited in this connexion which have really nothing to do with the question, but deal with questions of civil rights in a Colony of persons residing abroad. It is absurd to say absolutely, as in the doctrine ascribed by Lefroy to Low v. Routledge, that an alien’s rights outside Canada cannot be affected by a Canadian Act. That case is no authority for any such proposition : it is an autho- rity merely for the proposition that an Imperial Act con- ferring certain privileges cannot be rendered invalid by any Colonial legislation, if such privileges are expressed to extend to the Colonies, as was the privilege of obtaining copyright imperially by publication in England in that case. The real position is clearly laid down in Ashbury v. Ellis, where the Privy Council held clearly that the power given to New Zealand by s. 53 of the Constitution Act of 1852 enabled the Legislature to make rules subjecting to the jurisdiction of its tribunals persons neither themselves nor by their agents resident in the Colony, in respect of actions founded on any contract made or entered into wholly or in part to be performed in the Colony, for their lordships are clear that it is for the peace, order, and good government of New Zealand that the Courts of New Zealand should in any case of contracts made or to be performed in New Zealand have the power of judging whether they will or will not proceed in the absence of the defendant.’ The Court carefully distinguished in that case between the validity of the law in the Colony and its effect outside in other Courts, which of course is quite a different thing, and depends on the doctrines of private international law. Thus the cases which treat of the effect in England of judgements obtained in Colonial Courts in these cases are not directed to the effect of Colonial laws outside the territory, but to the principles of law which apply if a Court proceeds with a case in the * BR. v. Bester, 21 N. L. R. 238, where Dutch law only was cited foreign ; of. Anson, Law of the Constitution ®, 11. i. 242-5. * 1 Ch. App. 42, 3 [1893] A. C. 339.

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