838¢ THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV. 
The question of appeals to the Privy Council from the 
Commonwealth and the State Courts will be dealt with below. 
As part of the settlement of that question, Act No. 8 of 1907 
has deprived the State Supreme Courts of any jurisdiction 
whatever in cases where no appeal lies save by leave of the 
High Court to the Crown in Council! that is, cases involving 
the constitutional rights of the states inter se, or of the 
Commonwealth and a state or states, thus preventing a 
direct appeal to the Privy Council from the Supreme Courts 
in these questions. 
What constitutes such a case is of course difficult to 
determine. In Lee Fay v. Vincent? the High Court held that 
“hat case, which involved the question of discrimination in 
Western Australia on the ground of residence against inhabi- 
tants of another state (namely in not permitting by the 
Factories Act, 1904, the employment of Chinese in a factory if 
not employed there before November 1, 1903), was not within 
the meaning of s. 5 of the Judiciary Act, 1907, and could not 
be tried in the High Court save upon appeal from the Supreme 
Court to which it was remitted. In Fox v. Robbins, which 
concerned the validity of the requirement in Western 
Australia of a larger licence fee in respect of the sale of wine 
manufactured from fruit grown in another state than of 
wine from home-grown fruit, the Court also held that 
3. 5 did not apply, and confirmed the dismissal by the 
magistrate of the charge. 
In the case of Hogan v. Ochiltree * the High Court, in 
August 1909, on appeal from the Supreme Court of New South 
v. Purcell, (1888) 14 8. C. R. 453; 59 L. T. 279. Cf. also Parkin v. James, 
2 C. L. R. 315, at p. 333. It should be noted that the High Court follows 
generally the principles adopted in matters of appeal by the Privy Council, 
2. as to the grant of special leave, &c. See e.g. Baater v. New South Wales 
Olickers’ Association, 10 C. L. R. 110; Musgrove v. Macdonald, (1905) 
3 C. L. R. 132; Brisbane Shipwrights’ Union v. Heggie, (1906) 3 C. L. R. 
386 ; Saunders v. Borthistle, 1 C. L. R. 379 ; Mitchell v. Brown, 10 C. L. R. 
156 ; Schiffmann v. The King, 11 C. L. R. 255; see also Keith, Journ. Soc. 
Comp. Leg., xi. 220-8. 
' 63 & 64 Vict. c. 12, Const. s. 74; Harrison Moore, op. cit., pp. 236 seq. 
7C. L. R. 389. *8C. LR. 115. 
10 C. L. R. 535. Contrast Quick and Garran, op. cit., p. 722.