cap. 11] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 885 
Wales, had held that the plaintiff had no title to occupy the 
land in respect of which an action was brought in the previous 
June. The Legislature of New South Wales in June 1909 
subsequently passed an Act declaring in effect that the 
plaintiff should be deemed to have a title to occupy the 
lands in question at that date. In February 1910 a motion 
was made in the Court of New South Wales for decree in the 
suit, and the Chief Judge in Equity delivered judgement on 
the construction of the Act, holding that it was retrospective 
and bound the lands, but the further point was taken by 
counsel for the defendant that the Act was invalid, as being 
in conflict with the decision of the High Court in the case of 
Minister for Lands (N. 8. W.) v. Bank of New South Wales,! 
in which it was held by the High Court that the plaintiff had 
no title to the lands in question, and thus arose a question 
of the limits inter se of the power of the Commonwealth and 
the states within the meaning of s. 40 (a) of the Judiciary 
Act, 1903. The Chief Judge then held that the question of 
the validity of the Act must be referred to the High Court, 
and the suit was removed accordingly. It was argued for 
the defendant that the state legislation was in fact a direct 
interference with the judicial functions of the High Court. 
The judgement of the High Court gave the defendant a right 
which the Legislature could not retrospectively take away. 
The frigh Court unanimously agreed that no question was 
raised of the powers inter se of the Commonwealth and the 
states. The decision of the High Court remained untouched. 
It was now the law, declared by a subsequent statute, that 
the plaintiff then acquired a retrospective title to the land. 
The propriety of his doing so was a question entirely between 
the Legislature and the constituencies, and no question of 
she interpretation of the Constitution arose. 
The High Court has decided that the Supreme Courts of 
the states, in the execution of the judgements of the High 
Court reversing their decisions, are not able to allow either a 
stay? or an adjournment, though appeals to the Privy Council 
t9 C. L. R. 322. 3 Peacock v. Osborne, (1907) 4 C. L. R. 1564. 
' Bayne v. Blake, (1908) 5 C. L. R. 497.