THE KING V. LONG (EX PARTE LONG)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judgment delivered at__Sydney.

WB, Dow, Gor, Penk, Math : .on__Wednesday, 26th November 1947, 0.12280/45

#8

JUDGMENT,

THE KING v. LONG (Ex parte LONG)

LATHAM, C.J: The prosecutor, Victor James Long, obtained an

'erder nisi for a writ of habeas corpus with the object of

obtaining the custody of his male child aged six years, who is at present with his mother in Sydney. The father is a resident of Queensland.

A question arose upon the application for the order nisi as to the jurisdiction of the Court. The contention that there was jurisdiction was based by the prosecutor upon the provisions of section 75 (4) of the Constitution which confers upon this Court jurisdiction in matters between residents of different States.

His Honour Mr.Justice Williams has referred to the Full Court, under section 18 of the Judiciary Act, the question whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.

It has been brought to the attention of the Court that, since these proceedings were instituted by the father, the mother has instituted proceedings under the Guardianship and Custody of Infants Act of New South Wales. Under that Act there is no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the Sypreme Court of New South Wales to make an order with respect to the custody of this infant now in New South Wales.

. This Court cannot properly refuse to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by the Constitution; but when another Court also has jurisdietion this Court may consider whether it should or should not immediately exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.

We think that in this case it is in the best

interests of all the parties concerned to allow the proceedings in this Court te stand ever until the proceedings in the Supreme

RY

atti acc yp cy MOI 2

Rial