High Court of Australia
Foll Appl Appl Appl Comp F ee Appl Appl Appl i spp oll Public RR en en ce ee eae im AStLRs ik 379 ie eA K Pasig WE Non vet Peal Cons Geng Refd to, Starling y PPP me cnn IVR 105 feiss Ga SEBSIENS fealty Aeucorl em tof O00) 24 1Bac Came TT ACH mR egies is C.L.R.] NU de eee 583 Cons, Cc ea Ky au f AR 471 (3000), iis. CrimR 187 {HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.) BROOME : ; ' 4 : : 3 . APPELLANT ; DEFENDANT, 2 AND CHENOWETH ; ' : - 5 : . ResponpEnt, InFoRMANT,
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.
Income Tax (Cth.)—Deduction by employer from "salary or wages" —Hmployee H.C. ov A.
receiving " salary or wages in respect of a period of time in excess of one week" — ya.
Piece-work—Worker not engaged by relation to periods of time—Income Tax ae
'Assessment Act 1936-1945 (No. 27 of 1936—No. 4 of 1945), ss. 221a*, 221c*, MELBOURNE,
239, 240. Oct. 25, 28, 29;
Criminal Law—Plea—Autrefois acquit—Summary proceedings—Information not yoo 90,
disclosing offence—Dismissal "for want of prosecution" —Subsequent informa- aa Latham C.J., e, Dixon, lan and ms JJ.
tion disclosing offence.
B. employed H. to pick and bag onions for 2s, a bag. H. was not bound ~ to work at any particular times or to do any stipulated amount of work, and he did not work continuously. At the end of six weeks B. paid H. £32, being
at the rate agreed for the work he had done in the meantime, and did not make
any such deduction as would have been required if the case was within s. 2210 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1945.
Held, by Latham ©.J., Dizon, McTiernan and Williams JJ. (Starke J. dissenting), that, as the payment was not made in respect of any period of time, 8. 21c did not apply.
> of an
Per Starke and Dixon JJ.: The dismissal "for want of prosecution ' information which alleged that the defendant had committed an offence against s, 2210 but did not disclose what the offence was, and on which the informant was unwilling to proceed, was not a bar to proceedings on a subse- quent information which adequately charged the offence ; the defendant was
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