396 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [PART II 
recently received new life from a judgement of ‘the Chief 
Justice of New Zealand. 
It was held by the Chief Justice of New Zealand, in 
the case In re Award of Wellington Cooks’ and Stewards’ 
Union, that colonial legislation has much more than a mere 
territorial effect. The question there at issue was whether 
an award by the New Zealand Court of Arbitration as to the 
minimum rate of wages to be paid to cooks and stewards 
on vessels trading between New Zealand and Australia was 
binding upon two steamship companies, the one registered 
in New Zealand, and the other registered in Victoria. Neither 
company obeyed the award, for in Australian and Fijian 
ports they called upon the employees to do certain work, 
which under the agreement should have been paid for as 
overtime and which was not so paid for. The Chief Justice 
decided that as regards vessels registered in New Zealand 
the award was binding. It is very possible that the decision 
was correct as regards registered vessels under s. 735 of the 
Merchant Shipping Act? 1894, but he did not base it upon 
that section but upon the general power of the New Zealand 
Parliament, under s. 53 of the Constitution Act of 1852, to 
make laws for the peace, order, and good government of 
New Zealand. He held that unless such laws had some 
extra-territorial effect the power given would be defeated. 
Was there no power to punish a prize-fight between New 
Zealanders on a foreign vessel four miles from the coast, or 
could a duel between New Zealanders be fought with im- 
punity on a foreign ship four miles from land ? It was also 
pointed out by another member of the Court that prisoners 
on board vessels in transit from one prison of the Colony 
to another were within the jurisdiction of the New Zealand 
Courts. He held that the case In re Qleich® was overruled 
estate of a domiciled person, are notionally present in the Dominion. On 
the other hand, the last power does not belong to a provincial legislature, 
recording to the decision in Woodruff v. Attorney-General for Ontario, [1908] 
A. C. 508. Cf. Lambe v. Manuel, [1903] A. C. 68. 
26 N. Z. L. R. 394. 
Keith, Journ. Soc. Comp. Leg., ix. 208 seq. ; xi. 294-9; of. 29 N. Z.I.. R. 
310.B. & KS. C.179. 
360