International trade

Le problème de la marine marchande

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:: 1896935311

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-237672

Document type:: Volume

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

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 3

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XII Seiten, Seiten 1102-1670

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part V. Imperial control over Dominion administration and legislation

Collection:: Economics Books

280 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [PART 11 appearing that they in fact took place in the administration of martial law. In the case of Kimber v. Colonial Government,! which was a claim for the value of a horse which had been commandeered by a trooper under orders for use against the natives, the Court examined elaborately the question whether the act took place under martial law or not, and coming to the conclusion that it did, they held that they had no jurisdiction to interfere, but it may be noted that the Court was clearly of opinion that it had a full right to inquire into the circum- stances and to decide whether or not the case was one which fell within the category. In the case of Tilonko 2 the Court was invited to examine into the circumstances in which that native chief was being detained in the Central Jail at Pietermaritzburg. In that case it was alleged that about July 30, 1906, when Natal was not in a state of war, though martial law still existed, Tilonko was tried before a court-martial at Pietermaritzburg, found guilty of sedition and public violence, and since then had been detained in jail. The Commandant of Militia put in an affidavit which stated that his trial and detention were done under martial law and were not justiciable by the Court. This view was accepted by Beaumont J., who thought that during the existence of martial law the Court was not at liberty to inquire into the question whether at the time when the act complained of was committed there was existing such a state of war or rebellion as to justify the exercise of the arbitrary powers of martial law in a place admittedly within the areas covered by the Proclamation and after the outbreak of hostilities, though he appeared to think that the Court was entitled to satisfy itself, as had been done in the case of Kimber, that the act complained of was done by virtue of martial law and under the authority of those in whom the power of martial law was vested. On the other hand, Dove Wilson J., after quoting the affidavit, said that he was not satisfied that a mere statement that martial law was in existence, and that an act done under the * (1906) 26 N. L. R. 524. * (1906) 26 N. L. R. 567.

Access restriction

Copyright

Full text: 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