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 VII. The Church in the dominions

Collection:: Economics Books

1438 THE CHURCH IN THE DOMINIONS [PART VII Presbyterian Church. The General Assembly, hearing of this, and on his admission that the writ had been issued, resolved to suspend him, which, under the constitution of the Church, involved the dissolution of the pastoral tie and the loss of his emoluments. The plaintiff then brought an action against the General Assembly and the Presbytery jointly for a declaration that the sentence passed was illegal and void, and for a mandamus to restore him to office. It was held in the second action by the Supreme Court of Queensland, and on appeal by the High Court of Australia, on the construction of the terms of the consensual compact existing between the members of the Church in Queensland, that the respondent had submitted himself to the control of the Presbytery and the General Assembly only in matters within their jurisdiction under the compact, and that the General Assembly had acted in breach of the compact in summarily suspending the plaintiff from office and thus depriving him of emoluments to which he was entitled, and that therefore the suspension was illegal and void. It was held also by the majority of the Court (Griffith C.J. and O’Connor J.) that the issue of the writ in the first action was not a violation of the plaintiff’s vow of submission to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the Church. The order of the Supreme Court of Queensland * had directed that the plaintiff should be at liberty to apply for such relief by way of mandamus, injunction, or otherwise as he might be advised, and their order was altered by the omission of the word mandamus, as suggesting an order in the nature of an order for specific performance of an agreement for the establish- ment of personal relations between parties. The first action brought by the plaintiff to restrain any proceeding upon the resolution was successful before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland, but the decision was reversed bv the full Court. and leave to appeal 11909 St. R. (Qd.) 89. In the first action judgement was given by Cooper C.J. for the plaintiff, but that judgement was reversed by the full Supreme Court, and its decision was upheld by the High Court on the ground that up to the issue of the writ there had been no legal wrong to the plaintiff.

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