High Court of Australia
a
13 CLR) OF AUSTRALIA. 601
answer is that those other members had not done so, and if they H.C. or A. had, they could have been dealt with and could have been re- 1912.
ved from the Hous: d in | her 1 i moved from the House, and in law there could not be a necessity wrrris anp to bring the plaintiff back into the chamber in order to prevent Se other possible disorder on the part of other members from arising. Perry. The facts as alleged therefore do not, in my opinion, amount to
any possible justification.
Isaacs J.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitor, for the appellants, J. V. Tillett, Crown Solicitor for New South Wales.
Solicitors, for the respondent, Minter, Simpson & Co.
1h Ba [HIGH COURT OF AUSTRAILA.] BEDINGFELD . * : g - - . APPELLANT ; INFORMANT, AND KEOGH i 4 = i E te . .. RESPONDENT. DEFENDANT,
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.
ealth—Pure Food—Authority to Prosecute—* Enforcing" the provisions of the H.C. op A. Act—Pure Food Act 1908 (N.8.W.) (No. 31 of 1908) secs. 9, 40—Fines and 919, Penalties Act 1901 (N.S. W.) (No. 16 of 1901) sec, 4—Public Health Act (1902) =
8. W.) (No. 30 of 1902) sec. 198.
Sypyry, 'A proseention for an offence against the provisions of the Pure Food Act APYi" 26.
1908 may be instituted by any person under the general authority given Gritith C.J, and Vou. XII. 41 Isaacs J.
H.C. oF A. 1912. ee)
BEDINGFELD v Kerocu.
HIGH COURT (1912.
by sec. 4 of the Fines and Penalties Act 1901, the right to prosecute not having been expressly given by sec. 9 of the Pure Food Act 1908 to any officer or person by name or designation.
R. v. Stewart, (1896) 1 Q.B. 300, followed.
Decision of the Supreme Court : 28 W.N. (N.S. W.) 171 reversed.
AppEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
On the hearing at the Parramatta Police Court of an infor- mation by Thomas William Bedingfeld, an Inspector of Police, the present appellant, charging Matthew Keogh, the present respondent, with selling an article of food which was adulterated, contrary to the provisions of the Pwre Food Act 1908, objection was taken that a member of the police force had no authority to enforce the provisions of the Act by laying the information. The magistrate held that the objection was a good one and dismissed the information. On the request of the informant he stated a case by way of appeal for the opinion of the Supreme Court, asking whether his determination was erroneous in point of law.
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