car. v] THE GOVERNOR AND THE LAW 279 
and any inference drawn from the wording of the decision 
that the civil Courts must be satisfied with an allegation that 
war is proceeding is negatived by the language used by Lord 
Halsbury himself in the subsequent case of Tilonko 
Another case of importance was decided by the Privy 
Council on appeal from a decision above mentioned of the 
Supreme Court of the Cape—The Attorney-General for the 
Cape of Good Hope v. van Reenen® In that case a magis- 
trate who was acting as an administrator of martial law had 
sentenced van Reenen for a breach of martial-law regulations, 
but the papers did not clearly show that he had acted in his 
capacity as an administrator of martial law. With a view 
to removing any ambiguity on this question the Supreme 
Court reversed the decision as far as it was given by the 
magistrate as such.? On the other hand, the Privy Council 
reversed the decision of the Supreme Court. They insisted 
that the decision was purely one given by the magistrate as 
administrator of martial law. There was no record as in 
civil cases to be reversed, and the decision should not have 
been reversed, for it was agreed by the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court of the Cape that the Supreme Court had no 
jurisdiction to deal with or to affect the judgement of martial- 
law Courts. It should be noted that this decision does not 
in any way invalidate the view expressed in the Court below 
that the Supreme Court could inquire into matters done 
during martial law when the war was no longer raging—and 
but for the Indemnity Act passed in the Cape no doubt the 
Supreme Court would have exercised freely such powers. 
In Natal, on the occurrence of the Native Rebellion of 
1906, the effect of these decisions was clearly seen in the 
attitude adopted by the Court. In the case of Msolo and 
Guwana v. Rex d the Court held that they had no jurisdiction 
to review the judgement of the magistrate given when acting 
in his capacity as special administrator under martial law, 
even though the records showed that the proceedings took 
place in the Martial Law Court and Magistrate’s Court, it 
[1907] A. C. 93, at p. 95. 
» (1903) 12 C. T. R. 557. 
® [1904] A. C. 114. 
4 (1906) 26 N. L. R. 421,