Evidence Type: Newspaper Report
24 September 1839
SATURDAY.—Before the three Judges.
O’CONNELL and others v. BELL—O’CONNELL and and others v. WILLIAMS, &c, &c. The Attorney-General said, that although it was unnecessary to file a bill to restrain the plaintiff from proceeding in these cases, as he might have come at once upon Her Majesty’s prerogatives, as there had not been a case of this kind for many years, and the practice was not very clearly defined, for more abundant caution he had thought it right to file a bill in the Revenue Exchequer jurisdiction of the Court. The bill which had been filed, set forth that Her Majesty was seized of one hundred and five acres of land at Parramatta, and certain edifices and appurtenances thereon, a great part of which is in the possession of Her Majesty by the hands of her bailiffs, and the other part in possession of parties holding under grants from the Queen or her Royal ancestors, and yet that Sir MAURICE O’CONNELL, and MARY, his wife, and others, pretend that they have a title to the said land, and have commenced various actions. The affidavit of the Crown Solicitor set forth that several actions had been commenced against parties who are Her Majesty’s bailiffs: that THOMAS BELL is the superintendent and storekeeper of the Factory, and has no possession of the land except as Her Majesty’s servant: that JOHN WILLIAMS is a constable stationed at the domain gate, Parramatta, and has no other possession; that the Rev. J. TROUGHTON is residing in the King’s School, Parramatta; and that the land claimed from H. J. RICHARDSON is part of Her Majesty’s domain, and is in possession of Sir G. GIPPS, as Her Majesty’s representative. The learned gentleman cited several cases to shew that it is a clear principle of law that no action of ejectment can be brought against the Crown.
Mr FOSTER and Mr WINDEYER argued that the motion could not be made without four days’ notice, which had not been given. It was denied that the land claimed is actually in possession of the Crown, and they complained generally of being taken by surprise. After considerable argument, it was ordered by the Court that the case shall be argued on Friday next.
See Original: “LAW. SUPREME COURT. SATURDAY.—Before the three Judges,” The Australian (Sydney, NSW : 1824 – 1848), Tuesday 24 September 1839, p.2