High Court of Australia
ie
386,
Privy Councit.* 1932, Ww June 21.
nk Herne,
Gee wee
HIGH COURT
{PRIVY COUNCIL.}
JAMES . 3 é z s , . F PLamntirr,
AND
COWAN AND OTHERS . DerreNnDANTs,
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT.
Constitutional Law—Freedom of inter-State trade and commerce—State Parliamer Statute—Compulsory acquisition of dried fruits in South Australia—Orders Minister made pursuant to statute—Interference with inter-State trade and o merce—Validity of State Act—The Constitution (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), see. ® Dried Fruits Acts 1924-1927 (S.A.) (No. 1657—No. 1784), secs. 20, 28, 29.
Appeal to Privy Council—State legislation—Interference with freedom of inter- trade—Decision of High Court—Whether question "as to limits inter se of 0 constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or Stat arose—Certificate granting leave to appeal to Privy Council—Whether —The Constitution (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), secs. 74, 92.
Sec. 20 of the Dried Fruits Act 1924 (S.A.) is invalid as being contrary the provisions of sec. 92 of the Constitution.
acquisition of dried fruits in that State, grown and dried therein, for the p of forcing surplus dried fruit off the Australian market: such orders m contravene sec. 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which provides absolute freedom of trade and commerce among the States, but also contra see. 28 of the Dried Fruits Acts itself, by which the powers given to the Mini are expressly made subject to sec. 92 of the Constitution.
James v. State of South Australia, (1927) 40 C.L.R. 1, approved.
State of New South Wales v. The Commonwealth, (1915) 20 C.L.R. 54, cussed.
* Present—The Lord Chancellor, Lord Blanesburgh, Lord Hanworth, Atkin, Lord Russell of Killowen,
47 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.
'The decision of the High Court as to the validity of such legislation and of the orders of the Minister thereunder, was not one upon a question "as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States," and, consequently, a certificate giving leave to appeal to the Privy Council under sec. 74 of the Constitution was not necessary, whether see, 92 applied to the Commonwealth as well as to the individual
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate