Cheers v Porter [1931] HCA 51

OF AUSTRALIA. 521

e ly contended that the evidence proves that there is H- (. or a. sufficient cause" why the sequestration order should not sag ve been made. Melsross

Honor was correct in not allowing the objection to the making Sulina sequestration order founded on the appellant's tender of the s\oriman 9, nount of the assigned debt after service of the petition (In re

()).

Appeal dismissed.

citor for the appellant, D. R. Hall. olicitors for the respondent, W. A. Windeyer, Fawl & Co.

J.B. Cons F008. mons 1) (1910) 1 KB. 825. GEE Face 8) Qxeeet '567 y Sieve: {HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.} APPLICANT ; AND RESPONDENT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

ceny—Witness—Child—Intelligent, but no religious beliefs—Com- H.C. ov A to take oath—Declaration in liew—" Any person" —Corroboration— 1931. 0 upheld—Oaths Act 1900 (N.S.W.) (No. 20 of 1900), sec. 13*—Crimes Act 1900-1929 (NV.8.W.) (No. 40 of 1900—No. 2 of 1929), sec, 418—Child Sxpney, Veljare Act 1923 (N.S.W.) (No. 21 of 1923), sec, 110.

Oaths Act 1900 (N.S.W.), by as follows :—"(I) or criminal proceeding, or (b) having to never any person—(a) called as a make a statement in any information, 'in any Court or before any complaint, or proceeding in any Court or or other person authorized to before any justice, or (c) required or

CHEERS

Porter.

HIGH COURT (1931,

such evidence the boy was examined on the voir dire by the Magistrate, who found "him to be an exceptionally intelligent child and thoroughly to under. stand the obligation of speaking the truth. He did not, however, understand the meaning of an oath." 'The Magistrate allowed the boy to make a declara- tion under the provisions of sec. 13(1) (i.) of the Oaths Act 1900 (N.S.W.); to which no objection was taken, at the time, by the defendant.

Held, by Gavan Duffy O.J., Starke and Bvatt JJ. (Dizon and McTiernan JS dissenting), that in the circumstances the boy's evidence, received as above, was admissible,