Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

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

1246 ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION [pamTV a deceased husband’s brother by a New Zealand Act of 1900 (No. 72)! By alaw of the Dominion of Canada of 1890 (c. 36) it is enacted that all laws prohibiting marriage between a man and a daughter of his deceased wife’s sister, where no law relat- ing to consanguinity is violated, are hereby repealed both as to past and future marriages; this is also so in South Aus- tralia. At one time it was doubted if in New South Wales there were any rules as to prohibited degrees, as it was held that the English law (28 Henry VIII. c. 7) had not been in- troduced into the state. But this is now decided otherwise.? The marriages with deceased wives’ sisters were the cause of a good deal of difficulty ; their effect in England was that, though they were recognized in the case of persons domiciled in a Colony as valid for all other purposes, they did not confer any right to land, or of course to a title, in the case of an intestacy ; the case actually happened, though naturally it was not a common one : 3 but beyond that there was the feeling that the marriage was not quite proper inasmuch as the marriage in England would not have been valid, and English people who went to the Colonies and contracted such marriages while not domiciled there found their marriages absolutely invalid in England.* Moreover, the history of these marriages showed that their invalidity was partly arti- ficial, being, as a matter of fact, due to an Act of 1835 which caused them to be absolutely instead of merely voidable as before by action brought in the lifetime of both parties. [n 1896 the Agents-General petitioned the Government, in 1897 the Premiers at the Conference brought the matter up, and in 1904 the Government of the Commonwealth made an appeal, while in 1898 and 1900 a bill to remedy the situa- tion passed a second reading in the Lords, and on July 13, 1905, Lord James of Hereford pressed for action, but in vain. The result was the passing of an Act in 1906 to recognize for ! See Consyl. Stat., 1908, No. 113, ss. 44, 45. Proposed also by Mr. Scaddan in 1911 in Western Australia. * Miller v. Major, 4 C. L. R. 219, affirming the decision of the Supreme Tourt, 6 8. R. (N. 8. W.) 24, Cf, Parl. Pap., H. C. 144, 145, 1894, p. 38. Cf. Hammick, Law of Marriage, p. 253. * Cf. Sottomayor v. De Barros, 3 P. D. 1; Dicey, Conflict of Laws,* p. 631.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation