upon the point. There was a clear divergence of view as to the position of a foreigner resident abroad at the date of publication, but it was also unnecessary to determine that question. Upon the question of chief importance from a Canadian standpoint, the operation of the Act in a colony having copyright legislation of its own, the language of Lord Cranworth and of Lord Chelmsford may be quoted: "The decision of your Lordships' House in Jeffreys v. Boosey rested on the ground that the statute of Anne, then alone in question, must be taken to have had reference exclusively to the subjects of this country, including in that description foreigners resident within it, and not to have contemplated the case of aliens living abroad beyond the authority of the British legislature. The British parliament in the time of Queen Anne must be taken prima facie to have legislated only for Great Britain, just as the present parliament must be taken to legislate only for the United Kingdom." But though the parliament of the United Kingdom must prima facie be taken to legislate only for the United Kingdom and not for the colonial dominions of the Crown, it is certainly within the power of parliament to make law for every part of Her Majesty's dominions, and this is done in express terms by the 29th section of the Act now in question. Its provisions appear to me to show clearly that the privileges of authorship, which the Act was intended to confer or regulate in respect to works first published in the United Kingdom, were meant to extend to all subjects of Her Majesty in whatever part of her dominions they might be resident, including under the term 'subjects' foreigners resident there and so owing to her a temporary allegiance. That Her Majesty's colonial subjects are by the statute deprived of rights they would otherwise have enjoyed is plain, for the 15th section prohibits them from printing or publishing in the colony, whatever may be their own colonial laws, any work in which there is copyright in the United Kingdom. It is reasonable to infer that the persons thus (1855) 4 H. L. Cas. 815; 24 L. J. Ex. 81. 8 Anne c. 19. See cases noted ante, p. 26. restrained were intended to have the same privileges as to works they might publish in the United Kingdom as authorg actually resident therein. And, therefore, I have no hesitation in concurring with my noble and learned friend (Lord Cairns) in thinking that the decree was right. I find it difficult to concur with him in the opinion that the present statute extends its protection to foreigners."-Per Lord Cranworth. "Our attention was called to a local law of Canada with regard to copyright; but it was not contended that it would prevent a native of Canada from acquiring an English copyright which would extend to Canada as well as to all other parts of the British dominions, although the requisitions of the Canadian law had not been complied with. It is unnecessary to decide what would be the extent and effect of a copyright in those colonies and possessions of the Crown which have local laws upon the subject. But even if the Imperial statute applies at all to such a case, I do not see how such a copyright can extend beyond the local limits of the law which creates it."-Per Lord Chelmsford. The question was afterwards litigated in Canadian Courts and the view of Lord Cranworth adopted, that the prohibition against printing or publishing in a colony a work protected by British copyright applies even to a colony having its own Copyright Act. Imperial Bankruptcy Acts. The extent to which these Acts are of colonial application has been recently considered by the Privy Council and the House of Lords. The Act of 1869 was held to vest in the assignee in bankruptcy real estate of the bankrupt situate in a colony. The words of the particular sections were "lands and every description of property whether real or personal" and "all such property as may belong to or be vested in the Smiles v. Belford, 1 0. A. R. 436; 23 Grant 590; 1 Cart. 576. As to Canada's position under the B. N. A. Act, in reference particularly to Imperial Acts passed before 1867, see post, p. 37, et seq. *Callender v. Col. Sec'y Lagos, (1891), A. C. 460; 60 L. J. P. C. 33. bankrupt." There being thus no "express words," the question was whether there was the " necessary intendment" required by the Colonial Laws Validity Act. It was held that "if a consideration of the scope and object of a statute leads to the conclusion that the legislature intended to affect a colony, and the words used are calculated to have that effect they should be so construed." The scope and object of the statute was determined, not only on the language of the Act itself, but on their Lordships' view of the policy of the whole series1o of Bankruptcy Acts as being in pari materia, and it was held that "there is no good reason why the literal construction of the words should be cut down so as to make them inapplicable to a colony." The natural result would follow that the discharge of a bankrupt under the Imperial Act may be pleaded as a defence to an action in a colonial court.2 On the other hand, it has recently been held by the House of Lords that a foreigner cannot be adjudicated a bankrupt under the Imperial Act for an act of bankruptcy committed abroad. In that case certain United States merchants carried on business, through a manager, in England. Being in financial difficulties they executed in the United States a deed of assignment for the benefit of creditors. This would have been an act of bankruptcy under the Imperial statute had the assignment been executed in England; but its execution abroad was held not to bring them within the Act. A resident of a colony is a "foreigner" within the meaning of this decision.* 9 28 & 29 Vic. c. 63 (Imp.); see Appendix B. 10 The Act of 1849 had been held not to extend to New Zealand; Bunny v. Hart, 11 Moo. P. C. 189. 1 See New Zealand Loan Co. v. Morrison, infra. Ellis v. McHenry, L. R. 6 C. P. 228; 40 L. J. P. C. 109. See also Nicholson v. Baird, N. B. Eq. Cas. (Trueman) 195; Fraser v. Morrow, 2 Thomp. (N.S.) 232; Hall v. Goodall, 2 Murd. Epit. (N.S.) 149; v. Irving, 1 P. E. I. Rep. 38. Cooke v. Chas. A. Vogeler Co., (1901) A. C. 102; 70 L. J. K. B. 181. *See Colquhoun v. Brooks, (1888) L. R. 21 Q. B. D. 65; 57 L. J. Q. B. 70, 439. Imperial Companies' Acts. Neither the Joint Stock Companies' Arrangement Act, 1870, nor the other Companies' Acts with which it must be read and construed, extend to the colonies or are intended to bind the colonial courts; and proceedings in an English court under those Acts cannot be pleaded in a colony as a defence to an action by a colonial creditor.5 "It is impossible to contend that the Companies' Acts as a whole extend to the colonies, or are intended to bind the colonial courts. The colonies possess and have exercised the power of legislating on these subjects for themselves, and there is every reason why legislation of the United Kingdom should not unnecessarily be held to extend to the colonies, and thereby overrule, qualify, or add to their own legislation on the same subject. It is quite true that the provisions of the Arrangement Act are expressed to extend to all creditors, and so they do to foreign as well as to colonial creditors, but only when their rights are in question in the courts of the United Kingdom. Nor do their Lordships think that any assistance is to be derived from what has been held with regard to the application of the Bankruptcy Acts to the colonies. It has been decided that by the express words of the Bankruptcy Acts all the property, real and personal, of an English bankrupt in the colonies as well as in the United Kingdom is vested in his assignees or trustees. Their title must therefore receive recognition in the colonial courts, from which it has been considered to follow that the bankrupt, being denuded of his property by the English law, is also entitled to plead the discharge given him by the same law. But how does this assist the appellants? We have to deal with the winding-up of a company, not with bankruptcy, and there is a material distinction between the effect of bankruptcy and that of winding-up. In the former case the whole property of the bankrupt is taken out of him, whilst in the latter New Zealand Loan Co. v. Morrison, (1898) A. C. 349; 67 L. J. P. C. 10. But see ante, p. 32. CAN. CON.-3 case the property remains vested in title and in fact in the company, subject only to its being administered for the purpose of the winding-up under the direction of the English Courts."-Per Lord Davey. And the respondent held her judgment, obtained in the Victorian courts, for moneys deposited with the appellants in Victoria before the making of the English winding-up order. If a winding-up of a company incorporated under the Imperial Acts is desired in and for a colony, it must be decreed by the colonial court under colonial legislation." Marriage Acts. For obvious reasons the Royal Marriage Act of George III. was held to apply to all marriages wheresoever solemnized, while the Act10 prohibiting marriage with a deceased wife's sister was confined in its operation to persons domiciled in the United Kingdom and was held not to apply to a foreign or colonial marriage of persons not domiciled in England.1 In a Canadian case it was expressly held 2 not to be in force in Canada. "The colonies are not mentioned in the Act nor included by any necessary or even strong intendment." 'Allen v. Hanson, (1890) 18 S. C. R. 667; 4 Cart. 470. " 12 Geo. III. c. 11. 'Sussex Peerage Case, (1844) 11 Cl. & F. 146. 10 5 & 6 Wm. IV. c. 54 (commonly called Lord Lyndhurst's Marriage Act). 1 Brook v. Brook, 9 H. L. Cas. 193. For other cases involving enquiry whether or not some particular Imperial Act extends to Canada, see: In re Lyons, 6 U. C. Q. B. (O.S.) 627-an Act respecting de- Thompson v. Pennett. 22 U. C. P. 393–Orders in Lunacy. Georgian Bay Trans. Co. v. Fisher, 5 O. A. R. 383-Merchants' The Providence. Stewart (N.S. Adm.) 186-Navigation Act of |