I think that the answer to the first question should be No. It is unnecessary to answer the second question.

I agree that this is not an action between residents of different States. If Mr. Eager's argument were right, it would lead to an alarming extension of the jurisdiction of this Court. All that a plaintiff would have to do would be to see that one of the plaintiffs was a resident of a different State from one of the defendants, and he could then join with himself any number of residents of the same State as that defendant and could even make the State of which he himself was a resident a party.

I concur in the answer to the question. The argument for the plaintiffs is that we should read the constitutional provision as if it merely purported to give the High Court jurisdiction where there is some distribution of parties as between different States. But that ignores the full force of the word "between" in sec. 75. The action must be "between" residents of different States and, in my opinion, the plaintiff or plaintiffs must be resident in one State and the defendant or defendants must be resident in another State.

I agree that this is not a matter between residents of different States within the meaning of sec. 75 of the Constitution.

I agree that the answer to the question should be in the negative.

Solicitors for the plaintiffs, Tatchell, Dunlop, Smalley & Balmer, Bendigo, by Shaw & Turner.

Solicitor for the defendant, E. F. Lusher, Wagga Wagga, by E. A. F. Croft.