翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ R v Hess; R v Nguyen ・ R v Heywood ・ R v Hibbert ・ R v Hinks ・ R v Holland ・ R v Horncastle ・ R v Hughes ・ R v Hughes (Canada) ・ R v Huhne ・ R v Hundal ・ R v Hutt ・ R v Hydro-Québec ・ R v Incedal ・ R v Instan ・ R v JA ・ R v Jim ・ R v Jobidon ・ R v Jones ・ R v Jordan ・ R v Jorgensen ・ R v Journeymen-Taylors of Cambridge ・ R v K ・ R v Kang-Brown ・ R v Kapp ・ R v Keegstra ・ R v Kewelram ・ R v Khan ・ R v Khan (South Africa) ・ R v Khelawon ・ R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク R v Jim ： ウィキペディア英語版 R v Jim ''R. v. Jim'' (1915) 26 C.C.C. 236, was a decision by the British Columbia Supreme Court on Aboriginal ("Indian") hunting and provincial game laws. The Court found that Aboriginal hunting on Indian reserves is primarily federal jurisdiction, relating to section 91(24) of the British North America Act, 1867 which assigns "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians" to the federal government. ==Background== The case involved an Aboriginal Chief named Edward Jim of the North Saanich tribe. In Victoria, British Columbia in 1914 a police magistrate convicted him of possession of a part of a deer in violation of the provincial Game Protection Act. Jim had hunted the deer on a reserve and used the meat in his home. Jim fought the charges against him by saying he had treaty rights, and that the British North America Act and federal Indian Act ensured the province could not apply this law to Aboriginals. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Jim」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.