R v Snow [1918] HCA 48

25C.LR.). OF AUSTRALIA. 377

an order as was made by Buchanan J., and that that order should . C. or A.

be set aside. I think that the appeal should be allowed. fie, McBrive Appeal allowed. Order appealed from discharged. inti

Respondent to pay costs of appeal. [No. 2].

Solicitor for the appellant, H. G. Alderman. Solicitors for the respondent, Bright & Bright.

Bake (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.) _ HE KING . é E ; : . APPELLANT ; : AND SNOW tee ie eo RRR PONDENT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

Criminal Law—Case reserved at the trial—Subsequent amendment of ease asking new H.C. oF A. 'question—Misdirection—Misinterpretation of evidence—Special leave to appeal

1y1s. © High Court—Judiciary Act 1903-1915 (No. 6 of 1903—No. 4 of 1915), sec. = Th p>» MELBouRNE, ee ag Sept. 5, 12. On a trial in the Supreme Court of a State for trading with the enemy the

accused was convicted, and the trial Judge thereupon reserved a case for the Full Court pursuant to see. 72 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1915. On appeal ity to the High Court from the decision of the Full Court thereon the case was ava Duffy, remitted to the trial Judge for amendment by the addition, for the considera- 'Rich JJ. tion of the Full Court, of certain evidence admitted at the trial. On the

case as amended coming again before the Full Court, the trial Judge further

amended it by stating that in his direction to the jury he had misinterpreted

part of that evidence and had told the jury upon that misinterpretation

that they might find the accused guilty of an attempt to trade with the enemy,

H. C. or A.

1918.

Tue Kine v Snow.

HIGH COURT

and he asked whether under these cireumstances the verdict could stand. No

attention had been called to this point at the trial. The Full Court held that the direction was wrong, and ordered a new trial.