Skip to Content

Decisions of the Superior Courts of New South Wales, 1788-1899

Ex parte Marsden and Hall [1812] NSWKR 6; [1812] NSWSupC 6

contempt of court, attachment - convict attorney - appeals, Court of Appeal - Court of Civil Jurisdiction, equitable jurisdiction

Court of Civil Jurisdiction
Bent J.A., 4 August 1812
Source: State Records N.S.W. 5/1108 (case no. 240)[1]

[260] Ex parte the Rev. Samuel Marsden clerk, and Edward Smith Hall of Parramatta, gentleman

This was a rule calling upon John Henrick Stadler to appear this day and shew cause why an attachment should not issue against him for his contempt of this court in not performing a certain decree pronounced by this suit between the said parties on Tuesday the 28th day of July last past,

The said John Henrick Stadler appeared this day by his agent George Crossley of Sydney.

The court after hearing the affidavits of George Chartres and Thomas Prosser and the petition of the said Samuel Marsden and Edward Smith Hall and also after hearing the said agent of the said John Henrick Stadler adjudge that the said John Henrick Stadler is in contempt of this court, and direct that the Judge Advocate upon due application from the said [261] petitioners shall cause a writ of attachment to be issued against the said John Henrick Stadler, according to the course and practise of this court.
The said George Crossley agent as aforesaid now petitions to interpose an appeal from this decree, which the court considering this as a summary proceeding founded upon and intended to enforce a decree merely interlocutory, refuse to allow.

 

The said George Crossley agent as aforesaid now petitions to interpose an Appeal from this decree; which the Court considering this as a summary proceeding founded upon & intended to enforce a decree merely interlocutory, refuse to allow.

Note

[1] According to Alex Castles in An Australian Legal History, Law Book Co., Sydney, 1982, at 92, 496, the Court of Civil Jurisdiction should have had no equitable jurisdiction under the First Charter of Justice. This case shows that even under the hand of Ellis Bent, a barrister, the court applied equitable principles. In doing so, there was a mixture of common law and equitable jurisdictions which was foreign to the courts at Westminster in London.

Published by the Division of Law, Macquarie University