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

1378 THE JUDICIARY [PART VI assumption was needless, and he then withdrew his objection to one Final Court of Appeal. General Botha devoted his contribution to the discussion to the question of a Final Court of Appeal in South Africa, and not to the constitution of the Court of Appeal in this country. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that the Appeal to the Judicial Committee had as a general rule given great satisfaction, but he desired that the constitution should be remodelled, and he admitted that there was a conflict of opinion in Canada as to the value of an Imperial Court of Appeal at all. It is noteworthy that he was inclined to suggest that appeals by special leave were out of date and should be abolished. Sir Joseph Ward stated that New Zealand was in favour of an ultimate Court of Appeal—whether the Judicial Committee or an Imperial Court substituted for it. He indicated, however, that in his opinion the Judicial Committee was insufficiently informed with regard to the law of New Zealand ; it was true that counsel called attention to the New Zealand side of the law, but when the argument was over the Committee might apply some rule of English law which had been revoked in New Zealand or omit to apply some rule of New Zealand law which did not exist in England, and to which at the moment their attention had not been specially called. He suggested that in the case of every appeal from the Colony a Judge of the Supreme Court should sit, not to take part in the argu- ments or decision, but to supply full information as to the Colonial law. The Lord Chancellor explained in reply the existing constitution of the Judicial Committee as effected by the Act of 1895. He explained the relations of the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee, and he pointed out that in the case of Webb v. Outtrim! the four judges who sat were men of the greatest distinction, including Lord Halsbury and Lord Macnaghten. He indicated that to transfer the appeals to the Lords would be to deprive the cases of the advantage of being heard by distinguished Colonial judges who now sat on the Judicial Committee. He also pointed out that if Australia or any other part of 111907] A. C. 81.

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