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

cHAp. 11] LIMITATION OF LEGISLATION 383 offence to its jurisdiction. Upon any other construction it would be ultra vires, the local Legislature deriving from the Imperial Parliament a jurisdiction limited to the extent of the Colony. It was argued, on the other hand, that the Colony had full jurisdiction, and it was pointed out that the Imperial Parlia- ment by 24 & 25 Vict. ¢. 100, s. 57, had made similar provision to that made by the Parliament of New South Wales. It appeared that Macleod had married in the Colony of New South Wales one woman in 1872, and in her lifetime in 1889 he was married at St. Louis, in the State of Missouri in the United States of America, to another woman, and his con- viction for bigamy was in respect of that second marriage. The Privy Council advised Her Majesty that the judge- ment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had dismissed the appeal brought from the Court of Quarter Ses- sions, should be reversed. They held that the word * where- soever’ in the section was universal in its application, and they continued as follows ~— Therefore, if their Lordships construe the statute as it stands, and upon the bare words, any person, married to any other person, who marries a second time anywhere in the habitable globe, is amenable to the criminal jurisdiction of New South Wales, if he can be caught in that Colony. That seems to their Lordships to be an impossible construc- tion of the statute ; the Colony can have no such jurisdiction, and their Lordships do not desire to attribute to the Colonial Legislature an effort to enlarge their jurisdiction to such an extent as would be inconsistent with the powers com- mitted to a Colony, and, indeed, inconsistent with the most familiar principles of international law. It therefore becomes necessary to search for limitations to see what would be the reasonable limitation to apply to words so general ; and their Lordships take it that the words ‘ whosoever being married ’ mean ‘ whosoever being married, and who is amenable, at the time of the offence committed, to the jurisdiction of the t'olonv of New South Wales’ Further, interpreting the section as intended to make the offence of bigamy justiciable all over the Colony, and to secure that no limits of local venue were to be observed in

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