High Court of Australia
=
C.LR.| OF AUSTRALIA. 675
officer should be entitled to receive when those departments were H.- ©. oF 4. transferred. oy For all these reasons it seems to us that the construction sug- Mrucer gested by Mr. Cussen is excluded by the considerations usually pyycoumoy- called in aid in construing an ambiguous section of an Act. The wzart plain meaning is that, as soon as the enquiry has been made what
is the salary to which an officer is entitled on 27th December,
1900, the section is exhausted. The plaintiff says that he was
entitled to a salary of £100 a year at that time, and he has received
it. He has not made out any cause of action in respect of any
addition to that salary.
Other questions have been raised with which it is unnecessary
for us to deal.
Questions answered in favour of defendants.
Solicitors, for petitioner, Rigby & Fielding, Melbourne.
Solicitor, for respondent, Powers, Commonwealth Crown Solicitor. ;
(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]
BPAOKHOUSE 600k). poy ee) APPELLANT; DEFENDANT, AND MODERANA . J 'i 2 ' i . RESPONDENT; PLAINTIFF.
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
WESTERN AUSTRALIA. H.C. or A
Practice—Irregular service of initiatory process—Appeal—Prohibition—Special 1904.
leave to appeal—Rule upon which the High Court will act in granting leave to =$<—~—~ Perri,
appeal. es October 11.
Invegularity in the service of initiatory process does not oust the jurisdic.
'tion of the Court. Such a defect is a ground for appeal, and not for prohibition. Griffith, C.J., Barton and
Barker v. Palmer, 8 Q.B.D., 9, approved. O'Connor, JJ. H. C. or A. 1904,
pan ies, BackHousE
HIGH COURT [1904.
The principles on which the High Court will grant special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of a State as laid down in Dalgarno v. Hannah (ante p. 1), applied.
Moron for special leave to appeal.
This was a motion by the defendant, Backhouse, for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from an order of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, dated the fourth of October, 1904, discharging a rule nisi for a prohibition calling upon the mining warden at Mount Magnet and one Moderana to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue restraining the respondents from further proceeding on a judgment or order of the Warden's Court, dated the 8th July, 1904. The action was one in which the plaintiff sued the defendant and one Canning to recover the sum of £148 3s. for work done, goods supplied, and the hire of horse let to hire by the plaintiff to the defendants in connexion with the working of Gold Mining Lease 463M. Judg- ment was obtained by the plaintiff in default of appearance by the defendants for the full amount claimed, and a rule nisi for a prohibition was obtained by Backhouse on the grounds :—
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate