Pierce v Cooper [1918] HCA 1

H. C. or A.

1918. ~~ McGowan v. Grieve.

H. C. or A.

1918.

Hozarr, Feb. 18.

Griffith C.J., Barton, Gavan Duty and Rich JJ.

HIGH COURT [

is supported by the evidence, which was challenged on va grounds, and the other as to the validity of the regulation, latter question has not been argued before us, and we do not d with it. As to the former question, it is purely one of evidence and on the facts before us we think that the Magistrate was w and that the appeal should be allowed.

Appeal allowed with costs. Order nisi abs Conviction quashed.

Solicitor for the appellant, M. Lazarus. Solicitor for the respondent, Gordon H. Castle, Crown Solicit

for the Commonwealth. i B. L.

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

PIERCE 4 i : é s . . APPELLANT; DeFEeNnDANT, : AND . COOPER. . £ Z : : : . Responvent. PLAINTIFF,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA.

Practice—High Court—Appeal from Supreme Court of State—Appealable amow Special leave—Judiciary Act 1903-1915 (No. 6 of 1903—No. 4 of 1915), see. 35.

An action was brought in the Supreme Court of a State to recover £1000 damages in respect of an alleged wrongful and illegal entry.on land valued at over £300. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £250, which, on

appeal, was upheld by the State Full Court. The only remedy, if any, which the defendant could obtain on appeal was a new trial. q

Held, that an appeal did not lie to the High Court without special leave.

Special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Tasmania refused.

OF AUSTRALIA.

from the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

n action was brought in the Supreme Court by Ernest Alfred against William Rossendell Pierce. By the declaration laintiff alleged that, by an agreement dated 13th December made between the defendant and the plaintiff, it was agreed at the defendant should sell and the plaintiff should buy the fruit srop on an orchard of the defendant for the sum of £200, and that plaintiff should lease from the defendant the orchard for a term years from Ist May 1916 on certain terms ; that all conditions e fulfilled and all things happened necessary to entitle the tiff to maintain the action in respect of the matters hereinafter ioned; and that the defendant on or about 23rd January wrongfully and illegally entered into and took possession of hole of the land and evicted the plaintiff and still remained in ion thereof, whereby the plaintiff lost various moneys paid him and the value of the labour expended and materials used. y him in connection with the land, and had been deprived of the i sues and profits and the beneficial use, occupation and enjoyment the land. The plaintiff claimed £1,000 for damages. The dant pleaded (inter alia) that he did not promise as alleged ; guilty ; that the plaintiff had failed to carry out certain condi- tions of the agreement and had committed certain acts of waste, and that the defendant thereupon after due notice entered peaceably on the land ; and that he did what was complained of by the