888 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV
if rendered before federation, would not have founded even
a valid action in another state, may be registered, and acted
on now, though, according to the rules of private international
law as laid down by the English Courts and the Privy Council,
the action was not one which the Court could properly enter-
tain. No case has yet been decided on this point, but
Professor Harrison Moore! seems right in holding that this
is the result, as apparently it is in England in the case of
Scottish judgements contemplated in the Judgements Exten-
sion Act, 1868.
ft is convenient bere to notice the limits which bound the
power of the executive to establish tribunals other than the
Courts to deal with matters of a quasi-judicial character.
The establishment of such authorities has always been
jealously regarded by the Courts of law, and they will, as has
heen established in a series of recent British cases, scrutinize
very closely the acts of such tribunals to ascertain if they
are within the powers accorded, and if in the exercise the
authority has acted properly according to the powers—for
example, has heard evidence and has applied the proper
principles to considering the facts so found ; the Courts will
aot, of course, usurp a right to decide the matters which
are by law removed from their ken, but will see that the
authority constituted acts on the principles which bind it.
But subject to the control of the Courts the decisions of such
bodies are clearly judicial, and differ from executive Acts
in their binding force. On the other hand, there are cases
of inquiries which, though apparently in form judicial, are
not really such at all. This is dealt with in the decision of
the Supreme Court of New Zealand in the case of Cock v.
Attorney-General and another? decided in 1909. Tt was held
* Op. cit., p. 484; cf. Dicey, Conflict of Laws,? p. 426. The opposite
doctrine has been accepted in Mackenzie v. Maxwell, (1903) 20 W. N.
{N. 8. W.) 18, by Pringle J. Cf, however, ex parte Penglase, (1903)
3 8. R. (N. 8. W.) 680. Harrison Moore's view is adovted in Adcock v.
Aarons, 5 W. A. L. R. 140.
' (1909) 28 N. Z. L. R. 405. See also Clark, op. cit.. pp. 222-53, for
a Tasmanian case in 1899
