CODY V. GALLAGHER 5/1946

1.18280/45

4H. B Daw, Gor, Prit., seth

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judgment debivered at._£

RoDA

eee ee". wend deee Aol Mowe ae eok Per b,

5/ia46

Ce

LATHAM, C.d. This is an appeal by way of case stated from a

decision of a Magistrate at Innisfail in relation to complaints laid for offences under the Black-Marketing Act 1942. There were seven complaints; I take the first as an example.

The Respondent was charged with being guilty of an offence of black marketing in that, on or about the 6th day of September 1943 he did sell goods, namely, 5 dozen bottles of Corio Whisky, 5 dozen bottles of Vickers Australian Gin and certain other specified quantities of other liquor for the sum of £157.13. 2.. a greater price than the maximum price, namely, £135.13. 2. fixed in relation to the said goods under the Wational Security (Prices) Regulations, for the sale of the said goods.

The Magistrate found that the Defendant did sell on seven eccasions liquor at the prices alleged to Thomas Joseph Vandeleur, who was trustee for the children of 'the Defendant and his brother, and who*-held the Exchange Hotel as such trustee . But the prosécution failed because. the Magistrate held that there was no proof of what the liquor was that was sold, and therefore no proof of the cost of the liquor, and therefore no proof of the maximum permissible price under Prices Order 1015. The goods in question were goods which were not substantially identical with goods which had been sold previously by the Defendant, and accordingly the maximum price of the goods depended upon the cost of the particular goods. The Magistrate dismissed the complaints.

It has been contended for the Appellant that there was evidence of the identity of the goods. In my opinion, the case for the prosecution fails before the question of the identity of the goods as sold, or disposed of, to the Exchange Hotel is reached. The Magistrate did not draw an inference as to the identity of the goodse Lt may be that such an inference might have been drawn, namely that goods alleged to have been sold by Samuel Allen & Sons Ltd. were goods which were afterwards sold to the Exchange Hotel.