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

cusp. 1] THE CHURCH IN THE DOMINIONS 1439 was refused by the High Court on the ground that up to the issue of the writ in that action no civil right of the plaintiff had been infringed. It was clearly laid down by all the judges that the Presby- terian Church, like any other religious body in Australia, was in the eyes of the law a voluntary association, the mutual relations and obligations of the members of which were regulated by the terms of an agreement to which they were parties, and which had been adopted partly in 1863, when several Presbyterian congregations formed themselves to- gether as an ecclesiastical body under the name of the Presbyterian Church of Queensland, and partly in 1874, when a scheme for the general management of Church affairs was drawn up providing for the administration of the Church on the general principles of the Presbyterian Churches in all parts of the world. An Act of Queensland was passed in 1900 under which it was contended by the appellants that the Courts set up by the agreements were independent judicial institutions of the State, whose proceedings could not be called in question in the Supreme Court. That view was rejected out and out by the full Court of Queensland, and the High Court repeated the condemnation, saying it was for the Court and not for the parties to determine the interpretation of the contract. The majority of the Court also held that the plaintiff could not lose his right to bring a case. It was always in the power of a Court of Law to interpret and give effect to a compact when any civil right depended upon its terms. It could not be held that the minister of the Presbyterian Church was to be in the position of members of the Roman Catholic Church, and to surrender all his future prospects and living into the hands of an infallible General Assembly. The Chief Justice thought also that the Cardross? case was authority for holding that the issue of a writ in such a case was not a breach of the ordination vow. O’Connor J. shared the same opinion. He admitted, how- over, that a voluntary association might bind its members ' McMillan v. The Free Church of Scotland, 22 D. 290. Cf, 23 D. 1314. 7.2

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