Johnson v Miller [1937] HCA 77

Licensing Act 1932-1935 (S.A.), alleging that J. was the licensee of specified premises out of which certain persons were seen coming during prohibited hours. In the course of correspondence between the parties and their solicitors in furnishing particulars, it appeared that M. alleged and proposed to prove that about thirty men were seen coming in or out of the premises between the times stated, and that M. was in a position to give the exact time when each

*Sec. 209 (1) of the Licensing on the premises for any purpose

Act 1932-1935 (S.A.) provides: Any licensee out of whose licensed premises any person is seen coming during any Sunday except between the hours of one o'clock in the afternoon and half-past two o'clock in the afternoon and between the hours of six o'clock in the evening and eight o'clock in the evening shall be guilty of an offence . . . unless he proves to the satisfaction of the special magistrate or justices hearing the case, that the person—(a) was not

(whether the sole purpose or not) con- trary to the provisions of this Act; or (2) was on the premises contrary to the will of the licensee and that the licensee took all reason- able steps to prevent the said person from entering the premises and to remove him therefrom ; or (c) was on the premises without the knowledge of the licensee. . and that the licensee ~ exercised all practicable diligence to prevent the said person from entering or being on the premises."

aaa 1 Ger SS Fol Bh so , Ph ite WSiowan — Faxthome A. Connelly Builders' ALR321 oa) ALR Ss 40. 7 Keer Gy. Tks Teo iy Fe hae fells kt i) Malev pe ey ite Manon 4 feos RY 1999) 107, % 71094 - len, Ea, GR SaelPt ren 59 C.L.R.] -- --.STRALIA. al 467 IRV Foll ra) Bry nn Bbiuony Ree hay 309 uit 1992) Et deme Re Fe (issft've ss SRS ee oe * TTB Aer wh PPh Appl Rowe - | ee i ia Kies 1992} 107 oe = ead crc te wart (1967) rrgsion ir 71 im ai 116 CLR 220° ¢ {has i) ache 2) ial ec 2 Cente 109 — GporerBaker Gell Dawson Dist spt D PP Practices' = Era Goo0) SHs Honour 000) 114 Walsh v (REY Jue Gemimission v Yorex Meat Mege HQUGERA get ish AChR 26 Tasexall i a em weep R ee CrimR 496 PViclorig cee ? SS ALR S46 v ' Geentin West (uaGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] 31 enn : a Searle (No Ritonwide Beogn off ana pean 135 iS a News Pry Lid y Builders JOHNSON TPS Seen APPELLANT ; Tit 'ievensonV ee ee SeQWay'334 998) 90 og Dist A ae lee Gigamev Bess oll Environ- ES a iin 97 Gil, fake! Began Crim 364 396 (Crim 483 (2003)'1 176 iS Ze Bee ARB TILLER 5 RESPONDENT. Cons ist Holder y i COMPLAINANT, 4. fe 206) Foo" 'CR 430 TnMR TOS 'gyi 7 v CSR ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF gprs SOUTH AUSTRALIA. : ' n Foll/Appl Sustices—Complaint—Disclosure of offence—Suffciency of particulars—Latent 4. o, Rv gigpos™ ambiguity—Words applicable to a number of alleged offences—Refusal by prose: g34 SRSe'36 cutor to specify offence alleged—Power to dismiss complaint—Licensing Act ~~ 1932-1935 (S.4.) (No. 2102—No. 2241), sec. 209*—Justices Act 1921-1 ADELA, (S.A.) (No. 1479—No. 2261), secs. 22a, 51, 55, 56, 181-183*, Oct. 15, 18. M. laid a complaint against J. in the language of sec. 209 (1) of the SYDNEY, Dec. 16.