Bayne v Blake [1907] HCA 71

944 HIGH COURT (1907.

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

BAYNE AND ANOTHER . 2 . APPELLANTS ; PLAINTIFFS, AND BLAKE AND ANOTHER 5 4 : . RESPONDENTS. DEFENDANTS,

H.O. or A, Practice—Appeal to Privy Council from judgment of High Court—Stay of pro-

1907. ceedings.

aia The Privy Council having granted special leave to appeal from a judgment

Sypwey, of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction by which the cause was remitted 1906, Dec. 14. to the Supreme Court of a State for inquiries, proceedings under such judg- Mrinourse, ™ent pending the appeal were stayed, on payment into Court of the taxed 1907, Murch °08t8 of the appeal to the High Court, 'The Court, in the absence of special

6, 15. circumstances, refused to remove the stay.

Griffith C.J. - SUMMONS.

InChambers. In an action upon an administration bond bronght in the Supreme Court of Victoria by the plaintiffs, Lila Elizabeth Bayne and Mary Bayne against Arthur Palmer Blake and William Riggall, judgment was given for the defendants. Against that judgment the plaintiffs appealed to the High Court which gave a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover such a sum, not exceeding £5,000, as should represent the loss to the intestate's estate by reason of certain breaches of the bond, and remitting the cause to the Supreme Court for inquiry as to the amount of such loss: Bayne v. Blake (1).

From this judgment special leave to appeal was granted to the defendants by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but no order was made by that Court staying proceedings under the judgment of the High Court.

Q) 4C.LR., 1.

4 CLR] OF AUSTRALIA.

The defendants now by summons sought a stay of the pro- H. ©. or A.

ceedings under the judgment of the High Court pending the hearing of the appeal to the Privy Council.

Know K.C. and Clive Teece, for the defendants, offered to pay into Court the taxed costs of the appeal if the stay should be granted.