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, 111] JUDICIAL APPEALS 1365 An Order in Council was also issued in respect of the Trans- vaal before the Union of South Africa was constituted.’ An Order in Council confined to matters of procedure has been issued in respect of the High Court of the Common- wealth of Australia from which appeals lie only by special leave, and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the Union of South Africa, which is in the same position under s. 106 of the South Africa Act, 1909. In one class of cases the Privy Council will not exercise jurisdiction at all, namely, election petitions, because these are matters referred to Courts in quite a special capacity, and not ordinary judicial matters. This was decided in Théberge v. Landry? and has been followed by the High Court of Australia in Holmes v. Angwin.3 § 2. THE LIMITATION OF THE PREROGATIVE There has been noted above the Canadian Act which pur- ports to bar the prerogative in criminal cases. This Act stands in a peculiar position, for the Judicial Committee cannot, it is clear, desire to deal with such cases. On the other hand, the proposal of the Dominion Parliament to set up 2 Supreme Court barring all appeal thence to the Privy Council was abandoned on an intimation that the law would certainly not receive the royal assent.’ ‘In New Zealand Sir R. Stout has protested energetically against certain judgements of the Privy Council,® but the Government has made no move in favour of the weakening of the power of the Court in question. In Australia, however, the limitation of * Natal Bank, Ltd. v. Rood’s Heirs, [1909] T. S. 402; [1910] A. C. 570. * 2 App. Cas. 102. Cf. a land case, Moses v. Parker, ex parte Moses, 1896] A. C. 245, where it was held that the special character of the jurisdic- “ion (Tasmania Act, 22 Vict. No. 10) forbade an appeal. Cf. 30 N. Z. L. R. 530. Contra, Reg. v. Demers, [1900] A. C. 103, as regards the Quebec petition of right ; re Robert Barbour, 12 N. 8. W. L. R. 90. '4C. LR. 297. \ Lord Norton, Nineteenth Century, July 1879, p. 173. Wallis v. Solicitor-General of New Zealand, [1903] A. C. 173. See also Parl, Pap., Cd. 3523, pp- 200-30 (discussion of Court at Colonial Conference, 1907); 3524, pp. 179 seq. (complaints of its action); Jebb, Colonial Nationalism, pp. 303. 304. Cf. Ewart. Kingdom of Canada, pp. 235-45.

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