SYDNEY APPEAL CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15639, 19 June 1914, Page 7

SYDNEY APPEAL CASE.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE. UNSIGHTLY FIG TREES. By TekgHipb—Press Association—Copyright (Received June 18, 6 p.m.) London, June 18. The case of the Attorney-General of New South Wales v. Williams, was heard by. the Privy Council yesterday. Mr. P. Lawrence, K.C., for the appellant, said that serious work was proceeding in.the Sydney Governjnent House Grounds, notwithstand ing the fact that the appeal was pending. Sir Robert Finlay, K. 0., for the Government, said that the city's improving scheme necessitated the removal ol: 40 unsightly figtreeß. He was sure the Government would noli do anytlring to prejudice the case. Viscount Haldane (Lord High Chancellor): Does that mean that you are going to cut down figtrees Don't you think you can await their lordships' decision in the appeal;' the subject matter meantime to be left intact? We think that all the proceedings ought to be stayed, and that the appellant should have the liberty to apply for an injunction to the local Court. We cannot grant the injunction, but be. sure you do not cut down any more trees until you refer the matter to us. Sir Robert Finlay agreed to cable Viscount Haldane's observations.

HISTORY OP THE SUIT. Action ur/ier the Claims Act was brought some time ago 'by, the Lord Mayor of Sydney, in conjunction with Sir William McMillan and Mr. Thomas Henley, M.L.A., as relators, against Leslie Williams, nominal defendant on behalf of the Government of New South Wales, to restrain the latter from putting Sydney Government House to any use or purpose other than that of a residence for His Majesty's representative. The State Government had. thrown open Government House grounds to the public as an adjunct of the Botanic Gardens, and declared itii intention of utilising Govern-' ment House itself as a museum, while the stables are now being converted into a Conservatorium of Music. The contention raised on behalf of the defendant was that the property came under the definition of waste lands of the Crown, and had never been legally dedicated or set apart for Impoirial uses exclusively. That being ro, the house and grounds were vested in the Government, and could be utilised for the benefit of the public generally. To this the relators replied that the property was not waete lands of the Crown, but had been dedicated to the purpose for which it had been used for the past 60 years, namely, as an official residence of the Governor of the State. The Full Court decided in favour of the plaintiffs, but the High Court of Australia reversed the decision of the State Appellate Court,