Ex parte Bucknell [1936] HCA 67

56 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 221

himself reaches a final conclusion upon the question of all such H.C. or A. penalties. Treating the defendant as having applied for a stay 1038; of proceedings upon the judgment which the plaintiff is now at Prpprat liberty to enter, I refuse a stay. sca, z The defendant will pay the costs of the present summons which Weve I referred into court and I certify for counsel, including senior ppayrwerx.

counsel. = Application granted in part.

Solicitor for the applicant, W. H. Sharwood, Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth.

Solicitors for the respondent, A. R. Baldwin & Co. der.

[On 26th April 1937 the Privy Council refused special leave to appeal from the above decision and the decisions in Trautwein v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation; R. v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation, ante, p. 63, and Ibid. [No. fas ante, p. ae

yp late L ABlonwide APDL eB Pe taspace 4 Meogue v News Pry Lid News Pry Lid Banking (RE Re 0070 ie iy nN te WRT yEmdtiow CRN Fn tty MEBs xt

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

Ex parte BUCKNELL.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

Appeal—High Court—Leave to appeal—Interlocutory judgment of State Court— WO, o A. Principles governing grant of leave—Judiciary Act 1903-1934 (No. 6 of 1903— "yg No. 45 of 1934), sec. 35 (1). A

Principles in accordance with which applications under sec. 35 (1) of the Sypney, Judiciary Act 1903-1934 for leave to appeal against an interlocutory judg- ment of a State Court should be determined, stated.

Arpiication for leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of New Mich, p zon, South Wales. MeTiernan JJ. The Commercial Banking Co. of Sydney Ltd. brought an action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against Norman Charles Bucknell for moneys lent by the plaintiff to the defendant by way of overdraft and for interest and charges thereon to the amount, in all, of £2,272 15s.