880 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART IV 
the jurisdiction of the several Courts of the states, except as 
provided in this section. 
(2) The several Courts of the states shall within the limits 
of their several jurisdictions, whether such limits are as to 
locality, subject-matter, or otherwise, be invested with 
federal jurisdiction, in all matters in which the High Court 
has original jurisdiction or in which original jurisdiction can 
be conferred upon it, except as provided in the last preceding 
section, and subject to the following conditions and restric- 
sions :— 
(a) Every decision of the Supreme Court of a state, or any 
other court of a state from which at the establishment of the 
Commonwealth an appeal lay to the Queen in Council, shail 
be final and conclusive except so far as an appeal may be 
hrought to the High Court. 
(b) Wherever an appeal lies from a decision of any Court 
or Judge of a state to the Supreme Court of the state, an 
appeal from the decision may be brought to the High Court. 
(c) The High Court may grant special leave to appeal to 
the High Court from any decision of any Court or Judge 
of a state notwithstanding that the law of the state may 
prohibit any appeal from such Court or Judge. 
(d) The federal jurisdiction of a Court of summary juris- 
diction of a state shall not be judicially exercised except by 
a Stipendiary or Police or Special Magistrate, or some 
Magistrate of the state who is specially authorized by the 
Governor-General to exercise such jurisdiction. 
Several questions have been raised as to the effect of these 
provisions. In the first place, it was decided by the High 
Court in the case of Parkin v. James! that the provisions in 
3.73 (ii) cannot be interpreted to refer only to appeals from the 
full Courts of the states; from these Courts, as a rule, it is 
that appeals lie to the Queen in Council by right, but the High 
Court decided that they could entertain any appeal from 
any Court which was in effect the Supreme Court, whether it 
was exercising its jurisdiction through one or more judges. 
This decision, which is no doubt sound in law, was very incon- 
venient, for it leaves it open to every suitor to go straight 
from one judge to the High Court, whereas the intention of 
she framers of the Act was no doubt not to bring about this 
© 2.0. L. R. 315, foreshadowed by Quick and Garran, op. cit., p. 742, and 
secepted by the Privy Council in Blake v. Bayne, [19081 A. C. 371.