Kench v Bailey [1926] HCA 5

e Commonwealth.

BAILEY Boa aes DEFENDANT,

*The Justices Act 1902 (N.S.W.), e. 101 (1), provides that 'any party e proceedings, if dissatisfied with letermination by any justice or in the exercise of their summary iction of any information or com-

as being erroneous in point of »may . . . apply in writing to 'said justice or justices to state and nacase . . , setting forth the and grounds of such determination

AND

OF AUSTRALIA.

Rule nisi discharged.

' Solicitor for the appellant, J. G. Tenison Woods. Solicitor for the respondent, Gordon H. Castle, Crown Solicitor for

B.L.

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

APPELLANT 3

RESPONDENT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

When an information for an offence against the provisions of the Pure Food Act 1908 (N.S.W.) is dismissed by a Stipendiary or Police Magistrate in the exercise of his summary jurisdiction, the prosecutor has the right of appeal

for the opinion thereon of the Supreme Court." The Public Health Act 1902 (N.S.W.), see. 107, provides, by sub-sec. 1, that * penalties imposed by this Act .. . may be recovered before, and offences against this Act may be heard and determined by, a police or stipen- diary magistrate or any two justices in petty sessions in a summary manner according to the provisions of the Act or Acts for the time being regulating

H.C. or A. 1925-1926.

Tae Kine vw Deputy FeperaL Commis- SIONER OF TAXATION (S.A.) 5 Ex PARTE Hooper.

Food—Offence—-Dismissal of prosecution—Right of prosecutor to appeal—Pure 4. ©. ox A. Food Act 1908 (.S.W.) (No. 31 of 1908), secs. 1*, 10, 36, 39, 40*—Public Health Act 1902 (N.S.W.) (No. 30 of 1902), secs. L07*, 109—Justices Act 1902 (N.S.W.) (No. 27 of 1902), secs. 4, 101*—TInterpretation Act 1897 (N.S.W.) (No. 4 of 1897),

1926. ae Sypney, Mar. 30 ; April 12.

Knox 0.J., Isaacs and Gavan Duffy JJ.