CHAP. 111] REPUGNANCY OF COLONIAL LAWS 423 
Companies Arrangement Act, 1870, is not applicable to the 
Colonies, people in which are therefore not bound by an 
arrangement under the Act, although in bankruptcy matters 
it is otherwise under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883.1 Again, it 
has been held that the levying by Canada of a duty on 
foreign vessels which are imported into Canada to be registered 
there is not contrary to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.2 
The Mortmain Act of 1891, according to Mayor, &c.of Canter- 
bury v. Wyburn,?® does not apply to a Colonial will. The 
Fine Arts Copyright Act of 1862 does not apply to the 
Dominions according to the decision in Graves & Co.. Lid. 
v. Gorriet 
!' Callender Sykes & Co. v. Colonial Secretary of Lagos, [1891] A. C. 460; 
see Dicey, Conflict of Laws,? pp. 329 seq. 
* Algoma Central Railway Co. v. The King, [1903] A. C. 478. 
* [1895] A.C. 89. Cf. Carrigan v. Redwood, 30 N. Z. L. R. 244, where it 
is held that a grant for the purpose of saying masses was valid, the English 
law in force by adoption in New Zealand not including the Acts forbidding 
such grants. But see as to Wyburn’s case, Dicey. Conflict of Laws? 
p. 669, n. 1. 
4 {19031 A. C. 496, In Phillips v. Eyre, 6 Q. B. 1, it was discussed 
whether Magna Charta was not in force in Jamaica so as to render void 
the Indemnity Act passed for Eyre, but it was held otherwise. In The 
Bishop of Natal v. Wills, 1867 N. L. R. 60, and The Bishop of Natal v. Green, 
1868 N. L. R. 138, will be found a discussion of the extension of the 
Imperial Acts regarding the ecclesiastical powers of the Crown to Natal.