Stewart v R [1921] HCA 17

234 HIGH COURT (i921, H.C.or A. Appeal allowed. Decisions of Supreme Court ea and Court of Review set aside. Question of SrepenaKe! law raised by question 2 of the special case ae answered in the negative. Assessments ap- pou pealed against quashed. Any money paid =: under the assessments to be repaid. Respon- aoe dent to pay appellant's costs in High Court caw and Courts below. Solicitors for the appellant, Norton, Smith & Co. er, Solicitor for the respondent, J. V. Tillett, Crown Sol New South Wales. BL (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA} STEWART cos - 0. APPELLANT; THE KING. . . . . . . . Resronpent.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF 4 NEW SOUTH WALES.

H.C. oF A. High Court—Jurisdiction—Appeal from Supreme Court of State—Court of Criminal 1921. Appeal of New South Wales—Whether separate Court from Supreme Court— i Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (N.8.W.) (No. 16 of 1912), secs. 3, 10, 12, 24 (2)—

Sawer, The Contitution (5 & 64 Vie 12), oe 7B

April 20,29. oyminalLaxe—Beidence—Admiaiilly—Beidenc of ecuned given informe tial — oeeGs, —Brienca caw cher -Micerrage of fuer Crimes At 1900 (W.8.W-}

obra Ba. (Xo, 40 of 190), ee 407 Hea, that the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (SSW) does not erate a ne" Court, but merely directs that the Sopreme Court, constituted a therein prescribed, shall act asthe Court of Criminal Appeal, and, therefore, that an 'ppea ies from the Cour of Criminal Appeal to the High Court under see. 7

(1) of the Constitution.

OF AUSTRALIA. 235

ink tia vloalary otatoments of kn sasebci pesin(stteealy ox we Bs wi han own coast, ara sda in vile gait 18 Bie senso tll forthe same offence ; thatthe fact that the statements rs Beas ear eee-exarlnation doe nt desizoy thir rhentany charac; Sawa ae A woe il he de ws mpi ek ia I pean in ant tn, otiecets mae ple apie latin onthe Git tril tending to show his bed character are irlerant,