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.

1626 ADDENDA by a minister of religion (Canadian Gazette, lviii. 401). This seems clearly ultra vires ; cf. Debates, pp. 590-2, 737-40, 819-21. Pace 1426, n. 1. Canada is organized into three ecclesiastical provinces : that of Canada (an archbishop and nine other bishops), of Rupert's Land (an archbishop and seven bishops), and of British Columbia (three independent dioceses), with a Primate of All Canada (at present the Archbishop of Rupert's Land). New Zealand has only six dioceses, the Bishop of Dunedin being Primate. Pace 1436. The South Africa cases were followed in Bishop of Columbia v. Cridge, 1 B. C. (Irving) 5. Pace 1457, n. 1. In Ryland v. The Queen? a fiat was granted to a petition of right in respect of a claim made by an officer of the Province of Canada : the case was decided on the merits, and the judges did not decide the objection taken by the Crown that as the claim was in respect of service under a Colonial Government there could be no claim on the Crown in England. In West Rand Central Gold Mining Co. v. The King? a fiat was granted in respect of a claim against the Crown in respect of the seizure of gold by the Transvaal Government prior to the outbreak of hostilities in South Africa in 1899. The claim was by consent treated as if founded in contract, and the Imperial Government was said to be liable as the successor of the Republican Government, a view rejected by the Court. It may be added, with regard to the question discussed above (pp. 142-4) as to the petition of right in Colonies which do not enjoy English law, that in the case of Trinidad the Supreme Court held that an action lay against the Crown direct, and though this decision was appealed against, the Privy Council decided the case on other grounds. In discussing the case of Ceylon 5 the Judicial Committee assumed that the petition of right was not available, but the point was not argued. In the Natal case ¢ the Judicial Committee did not decide whether a fiat by the Crown would have authorized the Natal Court to decide a claim against an Imperial officer on a govern- ment contract, but that it would has been held in Mauritius? In Quebec the Act of 1883 8 expressly preserves any mode of proceeding available before it was passed, apparently presuming that some form of claim against the Crown existed without the passing of an Act, a + Times, December 18, 1883, p. 2. The facts will be found in full in Promincial Legislation, 1867-95, pp. 269-78. [1905] 2 K. B. 391. ? See Keith, State Succession, pp. 68 seq. * New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Co. v. Attorney-General, [1904] A. C. 415, at pp. 419, 420. * Hettihewage Siman Appu v. Queen’s Advocate, 9 App. Cas. 571, at p. 587. * Palmer v. Hutchinson, 6 App. Cas. 619, at p. 623. ! Murray v. Johnstone, 1866 Mauritius Decisions, 21. This is also the view of the Cape Supreme Court; see Fraser v. Sivewright, 3 8. C. 55; Van Zyl, Judicial Practice in South Africa, pp. 5, 6. In Mauritius claims against the Crown in its colonial capacity are regularly brought direct, see Colonsal Govern. ment v. Laborde, 1902 Mauritius Decisions, 19; Ordinance No. 35 of 1899. So in the Cape up to 1881 at least without any Act. ® 46 Vict. c. 27, 8, 17. See Code of Civil Procedure, ss. 1011-25.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Multivolume work

Volume

Table of contents

Download

Volume

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation