CHAP. II] REPUGNANCY OF COLONIAL LAWS 417 
repealed by the Imperial Parliament or the Colonial Legis- 
latures had been empowered to repeal it. Sir John Thomp- 
son did not suggest, and in all probability could not have 
suggested, a concrete case to the contrary. 
More importance attaches to two other cases cited by 
Sir J. Thompson. 
In the case of Harris v. Davies! the Judicial Committee 
of the Privy Council decided in 1885 that the Legislature of 
New South Wales had power to repeal a statute of James I 
{21 Jac. I, cap. 16, s. 6), and impliedly did so by an Act, 
11 Viet. No. 13, s. 1, of that Colony, which, according to 
its true construction, placed an action for spoken words 
upon the same footing as regards costs and other matters 
as an action for written slander. 
The section of the Imperial Act in question provided that 
in all actions for slanderous words, if the jury assessed the 
damages under 40s., the plaintiff should recover only as 
much costs as the damages so given by the jury. 
In the case in question, in New South Wales, the verdict 
was for one farthing, and the Judge certified for costs. The 
prothonotary refused to tax and allow them on the ground 
that under the section in question the respondent could not 
recover more costs than damages. A rule nisi was obtained 
by the respondent calling on the prothonotary to show 
cause why he should not be directed to tax the costs, and the 
rule was afterwards made absolute. The Supreme Court of 
New South Wales held that the section of the Act of James 
ceased on the passing of 11 Vict. No. 13 to have any operation 
in the Colony. The Privy Council took the same view, and 
the decision was due to the fact that the Act of James, which 
of course was passed at a time before any part of Australia was 
2 British Colony, was only introduced into New South Wales 
by an Imperial Act, 9 Geo. IV. c. 83, which expressly con- 
templates, by s. 24, limitations and modifications of that, and 
the other legislation introduced into the Colony under the 
Act, by the Legislature to be set up in New South Wales.2 
10 App. Cas. 279. 
* See Clark, Australian Constitutional Law, p. 301 ; above, p. 41L 
279 
i 
I%