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

1352 THE JUDICIARY [PART VI Court is not as constituted a Colonial Court of Admiralty within the meaning of the Act of 1890, though it can be given Admiralty jurisdiction by a Commonwealth Act under 8. 76 (iii) of the Constitution. Appeals lie from the State Courts in their Admiralty jurisdiction direct to the Privy Council, or alternatively to the Commonwealth High Court, but not presumably in the case of New South Wales and Victoria, while the Courts were Imperial Courts and not Colonial Courts. In (Canada the Court of Exchequer has Admiralty jurisdiction under Revised Statutes, 1906, c. 141; it has been discussed but not decided whether the Court has only jurisdiction in Admiralty causes arising in Canadian waters, or in all Admiralty causes wherever arising! There is also doubt as to the Admiralty jurisdiction on the great takes, which is claimed by the United States Courts.’ With regard to the provisions of s. 8 no Orders in Council have yet been issued as contemplated in subsection 2, but it is clear from the Imperial Constitution Acts of New South Wales and Victoria of 1855 (18 & 19 Viet. ce. 54 and 55) that the droits in question have already been surrendered by the Crown ; the same remark applies to Queensland in so far as the Act of 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 44) expressly confirms the Queensland Letters Patent of June 6, 1859, and those letters patent contain the same provisions as in the case of New South Wales. In the case of Tasmania (18 Vict. No. 17) and South Australia (No. 2 of 1855-6) the position is much more doubtful, for though those Acts have been validated ex post facto by Imperial Acts, the validation seems rather to have been a validation of their enactment as Colonial Acts and not the giving of Imperial validity totheir provisions in such manner as to affect the provisions of other Imperial Acts. In the case of Western Australia apparently s. 64 * Above, pp. 376, 377. The former view is supported by Bow, McLach- lan & Co. v. Ship ¢ Camosun’, [1909] A. C. 597, where the view is taken of the identity of the English and Canadian Courts. t The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555. See Canada Sess. Pap., 1877, Nos. 17, 54; Act 40 Viet. ¢. 21,8. 1; 54 & 55 Vict. c. 29, 5. 3; Gray, Journ, Soc. Comp. Lea., xii. 41-3. (R. v. Sharp, 5 P. C. 135, is a false reference.)

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