Symons v Schiffmann [1915] HCA 65

OF AUSTRALIA. 277

in respect either of that determination or of the later determina- H. ©. or A.

tion in August. If that be so, our jurisdiction to issue mandamus ee, is not questioned, and I think our discretion will be wisely Rem exercised by doing so. ae tiews SIONER OF Order absolute for mandamus. PATENTS.

Solicitors, for the appellant, Hales & Miller. Solicitor, for the Crown and the respondent, Gordon H. Castle, Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth.

' Bipeoms B.L. whe {HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] SYMONS ... £ . 5 5 E . APPELLANT; AND SCHIFFMANN . i ' ' : 2 . RESPONDENT,

ON APPEAL FROM A COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS OF VICTORIA.

Oustoms Law—Interference with goods in control of Oustoms—Evidence—Burden of H. C. or A. proof—Averment in information—Customs Act 1901-1914 (No. 6 of 1901—No. 1915. 19 of 1914), secs. 33, 255. : — MELpournr,

_ Practice—High Court—Appeal from Court of General Sessions of Victoria—Case Sept. 22.

stated —Justices Act 1890 (Vict.) (No. 1105), sec. 139—Rules of the Hiyh Court

1911, Part IT, See. IV., r. 1. Griffith C.3.,

Gavan Duity

'On an information under sec. 33 of the Customs Act 1901-1914 for inter- *"* "ch 9* fering without authority with certain goods subject to the control of the Customs, the Crown gave evidence to the effect that the goods had been imported into Australia, that duty was not paid on them, that they were not delivered to the importer, and that a month after importation they were found in the possession of the accused. No evidence was called for the

accused.

H.C. or A. 1915. —~

Symons v.

ScHIFFMANN.

HIGH COURT (1915.

Held, that those facts did not establish conclusively an interference by the defendant with the goods while under the control of the Customs, and that the provision in sec. 255 of the Customs Act that the averment of the prosecutor contained in the information shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of proof to the contrary, had no application.