A decision at Sydney, explained the nature of the claim for wages granted by former regulations of government. A female, at the close of a long servitude, sued her master for arrears: the judge advocate declared "his court one of equity and right," not of law; that the spirit of public orders, not their letter, was the rule of judgment; that the allowance of money required by the crown, was intended to secure the plaintiff certain comforts: those comforts she had already enjoyed, and thus her claim in equity had been already satisfied (1823). The wages of a man servant were stopped by the magistrates, because he had been accused of stealing from his master (1821)! The right of a master in the services of his assigned servant, was incidentally raised in the celebrated case of Jane New. She arrived in Van Diemen's Land under a sentence of transportation, and, according to the prevailing custom, was assigned to her husband; who was allowed, by Governor Arthur, to remove her to New South Wales: she was charged there with a capital felony, and death was recorded against her. The prosecutrix, Madle. Senns, a French mantua-maker, gave her evidence by an interpreter: afterwards, it was discovered, that the conviction was erroneous, both _in substance_ and _in law_: released on the recommendation of the judges, by order of the sheriff she was committed to the female factory at Parramatta. Her husband then sued out a writ of _habeas corpus_, to which the return, as amended by the direction of the court, alleged under the hand of the colonial secretary, that her detention was by authority of Governor Darling, she being a prisoner of the crown. The question seemed to depend on the nature of the rights conveyed by assignment; but a second arose: whether those rights could be exercised beyond the limits of the territory appointed for the transportation; or whether Governor Arthur was authorised to permit the removal. The judges, Forbes, Stephen, and Dowling, decided that the prisoner having been transported to Van Diemen's Land, was, by removal to Port Jackson, no longer under the provisions of the act of parliament; that neither the magistrates nor Governor of New South Wales, could make her the subject of summary treatment; but as a prisoner illegally at large, must remand her to the place of her original and unsatisfied term of transportation.