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

cmap. 1] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 887 to follow, and which robs the provision of any serious objection. Briefly, the effect of it is to secure the due recognition of the modern rules of private international law, especially with regard to the judicial proceedings. It does not even go so far as to allow one decision to be enforced by the Courts of another state, but it does extend to making another state’s Courts treat the decision as a correct exposi- bion of the laws of that state ; it deals in fact with procedure rather than with substantive law. For example, the case of Haddock v. Haddock! decided that a divorce valid in one state was not, under that clause of the Constitution, eo nomine valid in another; that depended on the further question whether the Courts of the first state had jurisdiction, that is, whether the persons divorced were domiciled there, that being the rule of private international law as understood in America by the Supreme Court. The Commonwealth Parliament, following the model of the Australasian Federal Council,? has power to legislate on the topics of the service of criminal and civil process throughout the Commonwealth and of the recognition of state laws therein, and the power has been exercised by the State Laws and Records Recognition Act, 1901, and the Service and Execution of Process Act of the same year. Part iii of the latter Act provides for the endorsing of warrants in other states and the arrest of the fugitive offender, who thay be discharged by a justice if the complaint is trivial, or apparently not bona fide? but otherwise is sent back. This power is concurrent with the powers given by part ii of the Imperial Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881. which has been applied to Australia. Part iv creates an interesting problem, for it allows the Courts of the states to have their judgements enforced by mere registration in the Courts of other states. This may, of course, give a curious effect in that a judgement which. (1905) 201 U. 8. 562. ' See Harrison Moore, op. cit., pp. 477 sed. ; Quick and Garran, op. cit., pp. 614-6; Elkan v. de la Juvenay, 22 A. L. T. 3M. © The King v. Boyce and Roberts, ex parte Rustichelli, (1904) 8. R. (Qd.) 181. An attachment for failure to carry out a judgement cannot be enforced slsewhere : Lewis v. Lewis, (1902) S. R. (Qd.) 115.

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