High Court of Australia
REPORTS OF CASES
DETERMINED IN THE
HIGH COURT OF AUS'
RALIA
[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] THE KING AGAINST POOLE AND ANOTHER ; Ex parte HENRY.
ON APPEAL FROM A COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS OF NEW SOUTH WALES.
High Court—Practice—Appeal from State Court of Petty Sessions exercising Federal H.C. or A.
jurisdiction—Pendency of appeal to State Court of Quarter Sessions—Judiciary 1938, Act 1903-1937 (No. 6 of 1903—No. 5 of 1937), sec. 39 (2) (b)—Rules of the High lanes Court, Part II., sec. IV., r. \—Justices Act 1902 (N.S.W.) (No. 27 of 1902), S¥PNEY, ied Dec. 6, 7.
'A person who had been convicted in a Court of Petty Sessions of New South ite...
Wales by a magistrate exercising Federal jurisdiction appealed under the yorianan JJ. Justices Act 1902 (N.S.W.) to the Court of Quarter Sessions and, before
that appeal was determined, appealed, under sec. 39 (2) (b) of the Judiciary Act
1903-1937, to the High Court by way of an application for a writ of pro-
hibition in respect of the same conviction.
Held that the High Court would not proceed with the hearing of the applica- tion until the proceedings before the Court of Quarter Sessions had been terminated.
Bx parte Giles, (1912) 29 W.N. (N.S.W.) 83, referred to.
HIGH COURT [1938.
Apprat, by way of order nisi for prohibition, from a Court of Petty Sessions of New South Wales.
Henry Goya Henry of North Sydney, New South Wales, was charged before Mr. Scobie, a stipendiary magistrate, upon an informa- tion laid by Alfred Alderson Poole, senior control officer at Mascot aerodrome, that "on or about the thirteenth day of April, 1938, at Mascot, near Sydney, in the said State, within Australian territory, an aerodyne bearing registration mark VOG of which you were the pilot, did fly in contravention of the Air Navigation Regulations made under the Air Navigation Act 1920-1936, in that at about 12.10 p.m. on the thirteenth day of April, 1938, the said aerodyne did other than when departing or loading fly over the aerodrome known as the Mascot aerodrome at a lower height than 2,300 feet " in contra- vention of the said Air Navigation Regulations.
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