R v Whitfeld [1913] HCA 7

— :16C.L.RJ OF AUSTRALIA. 689

Barton J. I coneur. H.C. of A. 1912.

[Isaacs J. was not present on the last day of the hearing, and = —~ Marconr's

took no part in the judgment. ] Wanted TELEGRAPH Order varied by ordering that the costs of Co, LAP. ; the application and of the appeal be plaintiff's' costs in the uction. : Solicitors, for the appellants, Blake & Riggall. : Solicitor, for the respondents, C. Powers, Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth. Bi La : <i : . ' (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] ,

THE KING acainst WHITFELD AND OTHERS.

Ex parTE QUON TAT.

Courts of General Sessions (Tas.)—Appellate jurisdiction—Federal matters—Pro- H, C, or A.

hibited immigrant—Conviction—Refusal to hear appeal—Mandamus—Judica- 1913,

twre Act 1903 (No. 6 of 1903), sec. 39 (2)—Immigration Restriction Act 1901 peak

(No. 17 of 1901), sec. 7. Hosarr, Feb, 20.

By virtue of sec. 39 (2) of the Judicature Act 1903 Courts of General

Sessions of the State of Tasmania are, within the limits of their jurisdiction, gyimun c.J.,

. - Se Rah Barton and invested with federal jurisdiction. ee

'As the Courts of General Sessions in Tasmania have no general appellate jurisdiction, but have merely particular appellate jurisdiction conferred upon them in several cases by particular Statutes, sich Courts have no general jurisdiction to hear appeals from justices in matters of federal jurisdiction.

Oe eg ka ee Re

Hdd, therefore, that a Court of General Sessions in Tasmania has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a conviction by a magistrate of a person for an offence under sec. 7 of the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, as a con- viction for an offence of that nature is not one in respect of which appellate jurisdiction has been conferred by any Statute on Courts of General Sessions in that State.

H. C. or A. 1913.

Wuitrep,

EX PARTE Quon Tar,