ADDENDA 1625 
Pace 1347. New Zealand alone adopts the rule of compulsory 
retirement of judges appointed after the passing of an Act of 1903 
on attaining the age of 72 years. In the Crown Colonies, judges who, 
save in British Honduras, Malta, Gibraltar, and Leewards, hold at 
pleasure are subject to the usual retiring age rules, but this would 
run counter to the Constitutions of Canada, the Commonwealth, 
and the Union, which rest on Imperial Acts : in the two latter cases 
the Constitution can be modified by local action. 
Pace 1354, n. 1. In R.v. Dodd, (1874) 2 N. Z. A. C. R. 598, it was 
held by the Court unanimously that the Supreme Court of New 
Zealand could not punish manslaughter committed by a British 
subject on a foreign ship (American) on the high seas (500 miles from 
Tasmania), though such a power was possessed by English Courts 
provided the accused did not belong to the ship, the counsel for the 
accused (Stout, now C.J.) and both Johnston J. and Richmond J. 
holding that the Act 30 & 31 Vict. c. 124, s. 11, did not apply to 
a Colonial Court. The decision may have been correct, for the 
accused may not have been a British subject—he claimed to have 
been naturalized in the United States—and if he were, may have 
been a member of the crew (cf. Richmond J., at p. 602), but the 
wording of the section (‘any Court of Justice in Her Majesty’s 
Dominions *) is absolutely conclusive in favour of the jurisdiction, 
and it may be presumed that none of the judges read the Act. 
Pace 1423. The power of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada 
has been much discussed in connexion with the Hebert case, where 
a marriage of Catholics celebrated by a Protestant clergyman was 
declared invalid by Archbishop Bruchesi, and then by Laurendeau J. 
held invalid on the principle laid down afresh in the ne temere decree 
requiring marriages to be celebrated by a Roman Catholic priest; 
the decree, however, extends the principle to mixed marriages. The 
Quebec Court held that (1) Catholics cannot be married by a Protes- 
tant, and (2) questions of the validity of Catholic marriages must be 
settled by the ecclesiastical courts. On both points the Courts have 
differed ; Catholic marriages by Protestants have been upheld in 
Burn v. Fontaine, 4 R. L. 163 ; Delpit v. Coté, R. J. Q. 20 C. 8. 338 ; 
and denied in other cases in accordance with the views of the eccle- 
slastical courts. Similarly some judges have asserted their authority 
to decide the issues (Delpit v. Coté, R. J. Q. 20 C. S. 338, per Archi 
bald J.), and reversed the decision of an archbishop, while others 
have held the reverse (Durocher v. Degre, R. J. Q. 20 C. S. 456, 
following Laramée v. Evans, 24 L. C. J. 235). The Hebert case is 
under appeal, and the issue will, it is hoped, be taken to the Privy 
Council. The Quebec Courts have not yet refused to deal with cases 
of mixed marriages (cf. Dorion v. Laurent, 17 L. C. J. 324 ; Burn v. 
Fontaine, 4 R. L. 163), nor have they decided any case on the new 
branch of the ne temere decree; see Ewart, The Kingdom Papers 
pp. 121-32. Mr. Lancaster has, however, introduced a Bill into the 
Dominion Parliament to declare valid any marriage duly celebrated