Christie v Ah Sheung [1906] HCA 41

H.C. oF A. 1906. a)

MELBOURNE,

June 26, 27, Griffith C.J., 'Barton ane O'Connor JJ.

HIGH COURT [1906,

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

CHRISTIE - . z f di APPELLANT ; INPORMANT, AND AH SHEUNG . ; 'i i : . RESPONDENT. DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS AT MELBOURNE, VICTORIA.

Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (No. 17 of 1901), sec. 7—Prohibited immigrant— Naturalized subject—Bvidence—Finding of Supreme Court on habeas corpus.

On the return of a hadeas corpus to L. to produce the body of A., a Chinese, L. alleged that he held A. under the authority of the Commonwealth Immigration Acts as being a prohibited immigrant. The Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria who heard the matter found as a fact, upon the affidavits read before him, that A. was identical with a naturalized Victorian subject of the King of that name, and was domiciled in Victoria, and, holding that such Acts did not apply to him, ordered his release. On a subsequent prosecution of A. under those Acts for being a prohibited immigrant found within the Commonwealth :

Held, that such judgment was not admissible evidence upon the question of fact of the identity of A.

AppEaL from a Police Magistrate sitting as a Court of Petty Sessions at Melbourne, Victoria.

Ah Sheung, a Chinese, arrived in Melbourne on board the steamship 7sinam, and was prevented from landing by Charles Lindberg, the captain of the vessel, on the ground that he was a prohibited immigrant within the meaning of the Immigration Restriction Acts, inasmuch as he had failed to pass the dictation test. On 30th March 1906, a writ of habeas corpus issued out of

OF AUSTRALIA.

found on the evidence before him, which was brought by fiidavit, that Ah Sheung was the same person as a naturalized ctorian subject of the King of that name, and held that for that on Ah Sheung was not an "immigrant" within the meaning 'the Immigration Restriction Acts, and he thereupon ordered the release of Ah Sheung: [Ah Shewng v. Lindberg (1).]