712 HIGH COURT (1915. H.C. or A. draftsman thought that the repudiation of illegality was pradent 1915. notwithstanding the suspension of the Land and Income Taw Sorowon Assessment Act of 1895, or that he slavishly followed an existing New fourm Precedent without inquiring whether any alteration in the law Wares had rendered necessary or desirable a consequential alteration in Sports CLus aay the covenant. Appeul dismissed with costs. Solicitors, for the appellant, Murk Mitchell & Forsyth. Solicitors, for the respondents, Rawlinson «& Hamilton. soe Os (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] CHIDLEY . 4 ' : : : , g APPELLANT; AND SMITHERS AND ANOTHER ' S . RESPONDENTS. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES. H. C. or A. Practice—High Court—Appeal from Supreme Court of State—Criminal matter— 1915. Rescinding special leave to appeal—Judiciary Act 1903-1912 (No. 6 of 1903— ee No. 31 of 1912), sec. 35 (1) (b)—Obscene and Indecent Publications Act 1901 SyDNEY, (N.S. W.) (No. 12 of 1901), secs. 6, 9, 15. Ape As Under sec. 9 of the Obscene and Indecent Publications Act 1901 (N.S.W.) priate, an order was made for the destruction of copies of an obscene publication Grimith C.J., found in the possession of the appellant, and he was also convicted under sec. Gavan Duy 15 of being the owner of the publication and sentenced to imprisonment. On and Ric orders nisi for prohibition, the Supreme Court held that the publication was obscene, and affirmed the conviction and the order. The appellant, by special leave, appealed to the High Court. Held, by Isaacs, Gavan Duy and Rich JJ. (Grifith C.J. dissenting), that in accordance with the rule laid down in Hather v. The King, 19 C.L.R., 409, the special leave to appeal should be rescinded. Special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of New Sonth Wales: Hz parte Chidley, 14 8.R. (N.8.W.), 97, rescinded. 19 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. 713 Appxat from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. H. C. of A. On 13th February 1914, at the Central Police Court, Sydney, es before George Henry Smithers, a stipendiary magistrate, on a Cumrey complaint made by Thomas Robertson under sec. 6 of the Obscene g.rors, and Indecent Publications Act 1901, an order was made under —— sec. 9 against William James Chidley that certain books (inter alia) seized while in the possession of Chidley should be destroyed as being obscene publications, and Chidley was also convicted under sec. 15 of being the owner of the books, and sentenced to imprisonment for two months. Rules nisi for prohibition were obtained by Chidley in respect of the order and the conviction. The Full Court by a majority (Pring and Sly JJ., Cullen C.J. dissenting) held that the books were obscene publications, and they discharged both rules nisi: Hw parte Chidley (1). From that decision Chidley, by special leave, appealed to the High Court. On the hearing of the appeal the question was raised whether, in accordance with the practice as stated in Hather v. The King (2), the special leave to appeal should not be rescinded. Cowan, for the appellant. Alec Thomson, for the respondents. Our. adv. vult. The judgment of the Court was delivered by Grirrirx C.J. In this case my brethren are of opinion that — Aprils. the special leave to appeal should be rescinded. Personally, I am unable to come to that conclusion. Special leave to appeal rescinded. Solicitor, for the appellant, 7. M. Kemmis. Solicitor, for the respondents, J. V. Tillett, Crown Solicitor for New South Wales. BL. (1) 14S.B. (N.S.W.), 97. (2) 19 OLR, 409,