Robert Alexander v Daniel Menary [1921] HCA 34

OF AUSTRALIA am

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA]

- ROBERT ALEXANDER. Derexpanr,

DANIEL MENARY . . . . . . Resronpenr. INFORMANT,

CHARLES BOYD ALEXANDER. - APPELLANT ; Derexpant,

DANIEL MENARY . * * 2 . Responvent. Tyronwaxr,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

Pivased Animals—Consignment for sale—Burden of proof—Catile Slaughtering and H.C. ov A.

Pisesed Animals and Ment Act 1902 (N.S.W.) (No, 36 of 1902), secs. 47,50. 1921, Sex, 47 (1) of the Gatle Slaughtering and Diseased Animals and Meat Act ..—~ 1902 (NS.W.} provides that "Whosoever sells or consigns or exposes for sale, YT?

{NS.W.) provides that "Whosoever sells or consigns oF exposes for aaley i 4 1g,

'or supplies for rations, any diseased animal, shall be lable to a penalty" &e. Sec, 50 provides that " (1) Any officer of or person authorized by the Board" of Health "may, at all reasonable times, inspect and examine any animal, 'areas, or meat, sold, consigned, or exposed for sale, or deposited in any place for the purpose of sale, or of preparation for sale, and intended for the food of 'man. (2) The burden of proving that the same was not consigned or exposed deposited for any such purpose, or was not intended for the food of man, shall be on the patty charged."

ox CF.

H.C. oF A 1921.

AurxaNpen,

Masany.

HIGH COURT

Held, that the provision in see. 50 (2) that the burden of proof shal the party charged does not apply to a charge made under see. 47,

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Wade J, Alezander, 38 NSW.W.N., 38, reversed.

= Mera

Apprats from the Supreme Court of New South Wales,

'At the Court of Petty Sessions at Singleton, before a P Magistrate, two informations were heard whereby David charged that, in the one case, Robert Alexander and, in the o case, Charles Boyd Alexander did on 18th August 1920 una consign for sale certain diseased animals contrary to the provisions of sec. 47 of the Cattle Slaughtering and Diseased Animals and Me Act 1902 (N.S.W.). The animals in respect of which the cha were made were ten head of cattle. Having dismissed both i mations, the Magistrate on the application of the info stated a case for the opinion of the Supreme Court in respect each dismissal, setting out the evidence and stating that in each case he found that the cattle had not been consigned for sale but for inspection, and that therefore no point of law was involved. 'The cases stated were heard by Wade J., who held that the Magistrates determination in each case was erroneous in point of law and ordered that the cases should be remitted to the Magistrate: Menary v. Alecander (1). Tt appeared from the transcripts that Wade J. in his judgment stated that under sec. 50 of the Act the onus lay upon the defendant to show that he did not consign for sale.