Musgrove v McDonald [1905] HCA 50

132 HIGH COURT

H.C, or A. and the words "as though part of the estate of the donor,"

ees used only in order to indicate the way in which the duty Hewarv be calculated. It appears to me that when the legislature' Tur Kixc, used language so different in its phraseology in dealing with th

four different classes of cases, it would be impossible to gi

Soa effect to its intention unless we hold that the duty in this k case is to be charged in quite a different way from that in whi¢ it is to be charged in the other three cases. I agree that # decision of the Court appealed against is wrong, and that th appeal must be upheld to the extent of the variation ennunciate by the learned Chief Justice.

Appeal allowed. Order appealed varied. Judgment for swppliant fo £42 16s, 10d., with costs. Respond to pay costs of appeal.

Bes. Solicitors, for appellant, A. G. Roberts. Fextye Solicitor, for respondent, Guinness, State Crown Solicitor, eee eS FolV/Appl B. MB:

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

MUSGROVE AND ANOTHER . . . APPE PLAINTIFES, AND P McDONALD AND OTHERS . . »... RESPONDE DEFENDANTS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF H.C. or A SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

1905. Practice—Appeal—New trial—Verdict of jury—ireuit Court—The Con: ee (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12) sec. 73—*< All judgments, decrees, orders and. se ADELAIDE, —Contract of sale—When property passes—Waiver—Sale of Goods Act (St

Nov. 1, 2. Australia) 1895 (No. 630). Metzovrse, i : Nov. 25, An appeal does not lie to the High Court of Australia from a verdict é jury, or from a judgment of the Supreme Court of a State founded upo Grin 0.2., general verdict of a jury, except by way of appeal from a decision of

O'Connor JJ. Supreme Court in an application for a new trial.

3 CLK.) OF AUSTRALIA,

An application for a new trial after verdict, upon whatever ground, does not fall within the words of The Constitution, sec. 73—<appeals from all judgments decrees orders and sentences" of Federal Courts or State Courts.