Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

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:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter II. The commonwealth of Australia

Collection:: Economics Books

838¢ THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV. The question of appeals to the Privy Council from the Commonwealth and the State Courts will be dealt with below. As part of the settlement of that question, Act No. 8 of 1907 has deprived the State Supreme Courts of any jurisdiction whatever in cases where no appeal lies save by leave of the High Court to the Crown in Council! that is, cases involving the constitutional rights of the states inter se, or of the Commonwealth and a state or states, thus preventing a direct appeal to the Privy Council from the Supreme Courts in these questions. What constitutes such a case is of course difficult to determine. In Lee Fay v. Vincent? the High Court held that “hat case, which involved the question of discrimination in Western Australia on the ground of residence against inhabi- tants of another state (namely in not permitting by the Factories Act, 1904, the employment of Chinese in a factory if not employed there before November 1, 1903), was not within the meaning of s. 5 of the Judiciary Act, 1907, and could not be tried in the High Court save upon appeal from the Supreme Court to which it was remitted. In Fox v. Robbins, which concerned the validity of the requirement in Western Australia of a larger licence fee in respect of the sale of wine manufactured from fruit grown in another state than of wine from home-grown fruit, the Court also held that 3. 5 did not apply, and confirmed the dismissal by the magistrate of the charge. In the case of Hogan v. Ochiltree * the High Court, in August 1909, on appeal from the Supreme Court of New South v. Purcell, (1888) 14 8. C. R. 453; 59 L. T. 279. Cf. also Parkin v. James, 2 C. L. R. 315, at p. 333. It should be noted that the High Court follows generally the principles adopted in matters of appeal by the Privy Council, 2. as to the grant of special leave, &c. See e.g. Baater v. New South Wales Olickers’ Association, 10 C. L. R. 110; Musgrove v. Macdonald, (1905) 3 C. L. R. 132; Brisbane Shipwrights’ Union v. Heggie, (1906) 3 C. L. R. 386 ; Saunders v. Borthistle, 1 C. L. R. 379 ; Mitchell v. Brown, 10 C. L. R. 156 ; Schiffmann v. The King, 11 C. L. R. 255; see also Keith, Journ. Soc. Comp. Leg., xi. 220-8. ' 63 & 64 Vict. c. 12, Const. s. 74; Harrison Moore, op. cit., pp. 236 seq. 7C. L. R. 389. *8C. LR. 115. 10 C. L. R. 535. Contrast Quick and Garran, op. cit., p. 722.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation