CHAP. III] JUDICIAL APPEALS 1385
refer directly to the Privy Council, but the question has
been fought out in the High Court of Australia, and now
an appeal will be brought from the decision to the Judicial
Committee.
In the case of the prohibitory liquor laws legislation of
Canada the views of the Supreme Court were referred to the
Privy Council for advice, and an opinion was reluctantly
given.? In all such cases the Judicial Committee is unwilling
to deal with hypothetical instances, even on appeal, from
the Supreme Court of Canada, just as that Court is unwilling
to decide cases ex hypothesi. None the less, the Court has
decided several most important points in this manner, including
 the question of fishery powers ;® the position is curious,
for the decisions of the Supreme Court in these cases are
extra-judicial, though an appeal is allowed. No case has
yet thus been decided on appeal from a Provincial Court. It
is otherwise as regards Australia ; the Commonwealth Act,
No. 34 of 1910, contemplates full judicial weight being
accorded to the decisions of the Court.’

' For other cases of reference cf. in re Wallace, 1 P. C. 283 ; in re Pollard,
2 P, C. 106; MacDermott v. Judges of British Guiana, ibid., 341; on re
Ramsay, 3 P. C. 427; Emerson v. Judges of Supreme Court of Newfoundland,
8 Moo. P. C. 157 ; Smith v. Justices of Sterra Leone, TMoo. P. C. 174 (cases
of relations of attorneys and justices); Atforney-General of Queensland v.
Gibbon, 12 App. Cas. 442 (vacation of seats of Legislative Council, Queensland,
 above, p. 1375, n. 5); Cloete v. Reg., 8 Moo. P. C. 484 (removal of
recorder in Natal under Ordinance No. 14 of 1845) ; Malta marriage case,
Parl. Pap., Cd. 7982.
* Cf. Bourinot, Constitution of Canada, p. 105 ; [1896] A. C. 348.
' {1898] A. C. 700.
! Cf. Wheeler, Confederation Law, pp. 394, 395, 401, 402, 405, 406.
' In Bruce v. Commonwealth Trade Marks Label Association, 4 C. L. R.
1569, the High Court declined to decide the abstract question of the
validity of Part VII of the Trade Marks Act, 1905; see Harrison Moore,
Commonwealth of Australia,’ pp. 394 seq. It may be added that the
Privy Council is not bound by its own judgements of necessity, differing
from the House of Lords. For cases of conflict with the Court of Appeal
in England, of. Victoria Railway Commissioners v. Coultas and Wife,
13 App. Cas. 222, with Pugh v. London, Brighton, and South Coast
Railway Co., [1896] 2 Q. B. 248 ; Wilkinson v. Downlon, [18971 2 Q. B. 57,
and cf, 3 App. Cas. 115 with 4 App. Cas. 324.