Bishop v Chung Brothers [1907] HCA 23

1262 HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

BISHOP . A : : i J z INFORMANT, AND

CHUNG BROTHERS Pe $8 coe 1 1 Sentai DEFENDANTS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA. H.C. or A, Factories and Shops Act 1905 ( Vict.) No. 1975), secs. 42, 162*— Factories and Sho}

1907. Act 1905 (No. 2) ( Viet.) (No. 2008), sec. 9t—Prosecution against firm—Us — firm name in proceedings—Conviction.

"EE A firm, of which A. and B. were the members, being the occupiers June 56,10, factory, were informed against and convicted under the firm name o offence under sec. 42 of the Factories and Shops Act 1905 of permit oes person to work in their factory after half-past two on a Saturday afte Higgins Jd Held (Higgins J. dissenting) that, notwithstanding sec. 162 (c) and

that Act, and sec. 9 of the Factories and Shops Act 1905 (No. 2), the tion was wrong, and that it should have been of the members of the their own names.

An order to review the conviction was made absolute by the Su Court.

Held, per Grifith C.J., Barton and Isaacs JJ., that the case should hi been remitted to the justices to convict the persons proved to be mem the firm.

Judgment of Chomley J.: Bishop v. Chung Bros., (1907) V-LB., A.L.T., 106, reversed. es

*Sec. 162. 'The following pro- +8ec. 9. "In any prosecution visions shall have effect with reference contravention of section forty- to proceedings before Courts of Petty the Principal Act the occupi Sessions for offences under this Act:—- _ factory or work-room shall be d

(c) It shall be sufficient to state the —_ to have permitted a person to name of the ostensible occupier of the _ contravention of the said section factory work-room bakehouse or shop rson whomsoever is proved to hi or the title of the firm or company by bent working in the factory or | which the occupier of the factory work- room of such occupier di the t room bakehouse or shop is usually during which work is pro known." the said section."