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 VIII. Imperial unity and imperial co-operation

Collection:: Economics Books

CHAP, I] THE UNITY OF THE EMPIRE 1457 came neatly out ; in that case the New South Wales Govern- ment were sued in a New South Wales Court on a contract to pay a soldier ten shillings a day for service in South Africa. The Imperial Government had paid him four shillings and sixpence a day, and the New South Wales Government claimed to set this amount off against the total claim, The Privy Council held that this could be done, and they stated that in such a case there could be no difference asserted between the Crown in its several positions as the Crown in the United Kingdom, and the Crown in the State of New South Wales. Nor can it be held that this judgement is in any way inconsistent with the rule that Colonial claims against the Crown are not subjects in which here a petition of right will normally be allowed ;! it cannot safely be said that they will never be allowed ; but in any case the position is simply that a creditor should sue the Crown in the Courts of the Government which contracted the debt, and which is answerable for it. It is not at all likely that the Crown could recover against a defendant who had paid the debt to a Colonial Government, any more than a plaintiff can recover when the debt has been paid by the Crown in some other capacity, and it does not seem that the fact of the claim being a military one could be held to make any difference.? 2 2, Furure PROSPECTS In the period 1884-93, the question of Imperial federation was extremely prominent and was repeatedly debated.? Febraary 11, 1905, p. 34. Cf. also Sloman v. Government of New Zealand, 1 C. P.D. 563; inre Oriental Bank, 28 Ch, D. 643: in re Bateman’s Trust, L5 Eq. 355. ' Cf. Robertson, Proceedings by and against the Crown, p. 340. The author is wrong in thinking that a petition of right is not available against » Colonial Government in the Courts of the Colony ; see Clode, Petition of Right, In Dinizulu’s case the Attorney-General in England admitted that he had a legal right to the salary promised him from Natal funds. Cf. p. 145, * Harrison Moore, Commonwealth of Australia,’ p. 89. seems to suggest that this is the differentia. ¥ Ct. Ewart, Kingdom of Canada, pp. 159-68 ; Dilke, Problems of Greater

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