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. TIT] JUDICIAL APPEALS 1383 the removal of Judge Sanderson,! and there are other cases of this kind, including a special reference from the Bahama Islands with regard to Mr. Yelverton? There have been also, however, other important matters which have been dealt with in this manner. For example, the question of the boundary between Manitoba and Ontario was thus referred to the Privy Council, and a decision given which was accepted by the two provinces, and which was afterwards embodied in an Imperial Act? Again, the question of the position of the Bishop of Natal with regard to the Bishop of Cape Town was considered on a similar reference, although in that case the Judicial Committee were clear that the matter could be treated as a trial of an appeal from the Court in the Colonies.t In that case a question was raised as to whether an appeal was competent, inasmuch as it was asserted that the action of the Bishop of Cape Town in purporting to deprive the Bishop of Natal of his status was altogether ultra wires, and therefore, as a mere nullity, could not be appealed from. And again in 1886, at the request of the two Houses of the Parliament of Queensland, a reference was made to the Judicial Committee to decide the question of the rights of the two Houses respectively with regard to Money Bills, and the decision which was given has not been questioned by either House.’ On the other hand, in 1872 a request for a decision of the relations of the two Houses in New Zealand on the same subject was referred to the Law Officers of the Crown at the request of the two Houses.® but it was preferred by the two Houses in Queens- ' 6 Moo. P. C. 38. * [1893] A. C. 138. The judge resigned before judgement, but the Committee expressly negatived his protest against their power to deal with the case. Mr. Cook in 1892 and Mr. Walker in 1908 were so removed. * Ontario Sess. Pap., 1885, No. 8 ; Canada Sess. Pap., 1885, No. 123 b; Imperial Act, 52 & 53 Viet. ¢. 28; Houston. Constitutional Documents of Oanada, pp. 276, 277. * 3 Moo. P. C. (N. 8.) 115. * Parl. Pap., C. 4794; H. L. 214, 1894. ¢ Constitution and Government of New Zealand, pp. 195 seq. Again, in 1865 a question of the rights of judges in Victoria was referred to the

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