Mansell v Beck [1956] HCA 70

High Court of Australia Dixon C.J. McTiernan, Williams, Webb, Fullagar, Kitto and Taylor JJ. Mansell v Beck [1956] HCA 70

ORDER Mansell v. Beck. Appeals to the Supreme Court of New South Wales (removed into this Court) dismissed. In so far as the costs of the defendant appellant have been increased by reason of the transfer of the cause to Melbourne for hearing and of the cause being heard in Melbourne, the costs are to be paid to the defendant appellant by the informant respondent. The costs of the appeals otherwise are to be paid by the defendant appellant to the informant respondent. Costs to be set off. Consolidated Press Ltd. v. Lewis. Appeal to the Supreme Court of New South Wales (removed into this Court) dismissed. In so far as the costs of the defendant appellant have been increased by reason of the transfer of the cause to Melbourne for hearing and of the cause being heard in Melbourne, the costs are to be paid to the defendant appellant by the informant respondent. The costs of the appeal otherwise are to be paid by the defendant appellant to the informant respondent. Costs to be set off.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Oct. 25 Dixon C.J. and Webb J.

Mansell v. Beck.

A stipendiary magistrate convicted the defendant of two offences against the Lotteries and Art Unions Act 1901-1944 N.S.W.. One offence was that on 1st October 1954 at Sydney the defendant did accept money in respect of the purchase of a ticket in a foreign lottery. The foreign lottery was specified in the conviction as the seventh five shilling lottery of "Tasmanian Lotteries" conducted in Tasmania. The provision relied upon by the informant as creating the offence is s. 21 of the Act. The other offence of which the defendant was convicted was for that on 25th October 1954 he did display upon premises in his occupation a notice relating to a foreign lottery, namely Tasmanian Lotteries, announcing the result of the lottery. Section 20 is the provision creating the latter offence. From these convictions the defendant appealed by way of case stated to the Supreme Court. The ground of the appeal is that the provisions in question can have no valid operation to penalise the conduct of the defendant on which the convictions are based because that would amount to an invasion of the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse assured by s. 92 of the Constitution. On the application of the Attorney-General of New South Wales to this Court under s. 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1955 the appeals by case stated were removed here and are now before us for determination.