crap. 11] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 879
(2) It shall not be necessary in any case, in order to appeal
from a judgement of the Court of a state to the High Court,
to obtain the leave of the Court appealed from.!

Part VI.—EXCLUSIVE AND INVESTED JURISDICTION
38. The jurisdiction of the High Court shall be exclusive
of the jurisdiction of the several Courts of the states in the
following matters :—
(a) Matters arising directly under any treaty ; 2
(b) Suits between states, or between persons suing or
being sued on behalf of different states, or between a state
and a person suing or being sued on behalf of another state ; *
(¢) Suits by the Commonwealth, or any person suing on
behalf of the Commonwealth, against a state, or any person
being sued on behalf of a state ;
(d) Suits by a state, or any person suing on behalf of a
state, against the Commonwealth or any person being sued on
behalf of the Commonwealth ;
(¢) Matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition is
sought against an officer of the Commonwealth or a federal
Court.*
39. (1) The jurisdiction of the High Court in matters not
mentioned in the last preceding section shall be exclusive of

t Under the Orders in Council the Court itself can in any case give
permission to appeal if it thinks fit. The State Parliaments cannot define
:he conditions of appeal to the High Court as proposed in the New South
Wales Criminal Appeal Bill, 1911 ; see Debates, 1911, p. 1384.
* Cf. the older cases, ex parte Marks, 15 N. S. W. L. R. 179; ex parte
Rouanet, ibid., 269 ; National Starch Manufacturing Co. v. Munn’s Patent
Maizena Co., 13 N. 8S. W. L. R. Eq. 101, at p. 116: Quick and Garran,
op. cit., p. 770.
* The Crown in each state and in the Commonwealth becomes directly
amenable to the Court, a curious result of federation, but clearly desirable ;
but there is no new genus of jurisdiction in reality created, cf. Penn v.
Baltimore, 1 Ves. Sen. 444. The cases could all have heen dealt with by
the King in Council or the Courts. The Supreme Court of Canada has
no such power save by concurrent dominion and provincial legislation.
Cf. Enever v. The King, (1908) 3 C. L. R. 969; Baume v. The Commonwealth,
 4 C. L. R. 97; Sargood Bros. v. The Commonwealth, 11 C. L. R.
258, at pp. 309, 310 per Higgins J.: Harrison Moore, op. cit., pp. 417-21,
191 seq.
' This was so held in ex parte Goldring, (1903) 3 S. R. (N. 8. W.) 260;
seo also Ah Sheung v. Lindberg, (1906) V. L. R. 323, at p. 326; Harrison
Moore, op. cit., pp. 400 seq.