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. II] REPUGNANCY OF COLONIAL LAWS 417 repealed by the Imperial Parliament or the Colonial Legis- latures had been empowered to repeal it. Sir John Thomp- son did not suggest, and in all probability could not have suggested, a concrete case to the contrary. More importance attaches to two other cases cited by Sir J. Thompson. In the case of Harris v. Davies! the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided in 1885 that the Legislature of New South Wales had power to repeal a statute of James I {21 Jac. I, cap. 16, s. 6), and impliedly did so by an Act, 11 Viet. No. 13, s. 1, of that Colony, which, according to its true construction, placed an action for spoken words upon the same footing as regards costs and other matters as an action for written slander. The section of the Imperial Act in question provided that in all actions for slanderous words, if the jury assessed the damages under 40s., the plaintiff should recover only as much costs as the damages so given by the jury. In the case in question, in New South Wales, the verdict was for one farthing, and the Judge certified for costs. The prothonotary refused to tax and allow them on the ground that under the section in question the respondent could not recover more costs than damages. A rule nisi was obtained by the respondent calling on the prothonotary to show cause why he should not be directed to tax the costs, and the rule was afterwards made absolute. The Supreme Court of New South Wales held that the section of the Act of James ceased on the passing of 11 Vict. No. 13 to have any operation in the Colony. The Privy Council took the same view, and the decision was due to the fact that the Act of James, which of course was passed at a time before any part of Australia was 2 British Colony, was only introduced into New South Wales by an Imperial Act, 9 Geo. IV. c. 83, which expressly con- templates, by s. 24, limitations and modifications of that, and the other legislation introduced into the Colony under the Act, by the Legislature to be set up in New South Wales.2 10 App. Cas. 279. * See Clark, Australian Constitutional Law, p. 301 ; above, p. 41L 279 i I%

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