cuar. 111] REPUGNANCY OF COLONIAL LAWS 405 
answered in the affirmative, and the second in the negative, 
are we able to suggest any principle which would regulate 
the distinction between fundamental principles of which the 
violation would vitiate a Colonial Act, and the non-funda- 
mental rules or customs of legislation which a Colonial 
Legislature is at liberty to disregard ? 
6. To what extent would a single provision invalid on 
account of repugnancy with English law vitiate the rest of 
the Act ? 
7. Would a judge be at liberty to pronounce a Colonial 
Act invalid, though duly assented to by the Governor, on 
the ground that it fell within one of the classes to which he 
was forbidden to assent without urgent necessity ? 
8. In particular, do we see any reason to doubt the validity 
of the South Australian Constitutional Act ? 
9. Having special reference to the omission of any reference 
to South Australia in the 29th section of the Act 13 & 14 
Vict. ¢. 59, do we see any reason to doubt the power of the 
South Australian Legislature to constitute courts of justice ? 
10. Do we see anything objectionable in Mr. Boothby’s 
view of his own obligation to conform his own judgement 
to the decisions of the Supreme Court of which he is a 
member ? ’ 
11. And, finally, whether we concur with the Committes 
of the House of Assembly in thinking Imperial legislation 
advisable or necessary in order to place beyond doubt all 
or anv of the above questions. 
The report was as follows :— 
That 1. The powers of the Colonial Legislature being 
conferred by Act of the Imperial Parliament, and limited 
by the same enactment, and so, valid or invalid, as they 
keep within or transgress the prescribed limits, the Supreme 
Court of South Australia is, in our opinion, bound (and 
certainly at liberty) to satisfy itself of the legal validity of 
any Act of the Colonial Legislature, the provisions of which 
it is called upon to administer. 
In the case of an Act assented to by the Governor, we 
think that the fact of its having been left to its operation 
by Her Majesty would not affect the question of its validity. 
2. We answer this question in the affirmative, as in the case 
supposed an unquestionable ‘repugnancy *would beapparent 
between the English law and the Colonial enactment, and 
the Colonial Legislature is debarred from the enacting of 
laws being thus repugnant (13 & 14 Vict. c. 59. s. 14).