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 VI. The judiciary

Collection:: Economics Books

CHAP. 1] THE TENURE OF JUDICIAL OFFICES 1333 legislate as it did by Act 50 Vict. No. 36, s. 5, which provides that after the commencement of that Act the nomination and appointment from time to time of the Judges of the Supreme Court by virtue of any power in that behalf enabling shall be by the Governor in Council by letters patent under the Public Seal of the Colony, any law, statute, charter, or usage to the contrary notwithstanding. In the case of New Zealand, the legislation with regard to judges is set out in the judgement of the Privy Council in the case of Buckley v. Edwards,? which established on a secure basis the independence of the judiciary. This case was decided by the Privy Council in 1892 on appeal from the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The question which arose there was whether the respondent had been authoritatively appointed a Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court by virtue of a Commission dated March 2, 1890. It was held in the Court of New Zealand by a majority that the appointment was valid, while the minority held that as there was no vacancy on March 2, 1890, by death, removal, or resignation of any of the four judges who made up the Court, and as the General Assembly had not appointed out of revenue a salary for a fifth judge, there was no power on the part of the Crown to appoint the respondent. As a matter of fact, the House of Representatives had refused to vote a salary for the judge, and had refused leave to bring in a Bill to validate his appointment. It was contended for the respondent that the Governor had power to appoint him, having regard to the prerogative and under the legislation of New Zealand. The judgement of the Court was against the respondent. The respondent was appointed to be a Commissioner under the Native Land Courts Acts Amendment Act, 1889, and partly in view of the importance of the post, and partly because of the delay in the ordinary work of the Courts, the Government In the case of the other Colonies the old charters were altered by the Constitution Acts. For the causes of the passing of the Act of 1865. see Blackmore, Constitution of South Australia, pp. 64 seq. * [1892] A. C. 887. Provision has been made in 1910 by law (No. 68) for the addition of a new judge. Cf. Quick and Garran, Constitution of Commonwealth, pp. 727 seq. See Const, Stat. 1908, No. 89, ss. 4-15; No. 22. Sched 9

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