Holland v Jones [1917] HCA 26

Micoein aes Parme Rete (hint mn

ava. xen, OF AUSTRALIA. 149

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

D AND ANOTHER. _ is . APPELLANTS ;

AND

" : é 4 i: " . Responvenr.

ON APPEAL FROM A COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS OF i. VICTORIA.

Var Precautions—Prosecution—Consent of Minister for Defence—Proof—Judicial H. C. ov A.

notice—* Official document" —" Official signature" —Abetting in making 1917.

nls prejudicial to recruiting—Kvidence—War Precautions Act 1914- = Gw

— 1916 (No. 10 of 1914—No. 3 of 1916), sec. 6—War Precautions Regulations MELBOURNE,

1915 (Statutory Rules 1915, No. 130), regs. 28 (6), 49—Bvidence Act 1905(No. May 18; 'of 1905), sec. 4, June 13.

Apart from Statute, wherever a fact is so generally known that every ordinary PArtonA:C-J-»

on may be reasonably presumed to be aware of it, a Court judicially ©' Putty JJ. es it, either simpliciter if it is at once satisfied of the fact without more,

r after such information or investigation as it considers reliable and necessary

order to eliminate any reasonable doubt. A Court will, therefore, judicially

who are the Ministers of the Crown and a signature purporting to be

at of a Minister of the Crown and to verify an official document.

na summary prosecution instituted by an officer of the Defence Depart- 'ment for an offence against the War Precautions Act 1914-1916, which by sec. (Ba) is required to be authorized in writing by the Attorney-General or the ter for Defence, in order to prove the authority counsel for the informant ed in evidence the original information in the margin of which were the words " I consent to this prosecution " and a signature of the name of the person who in fact was the Minister for Defence.

'Held, that the document taken as a whole was an " official document " andat the signature was an "official signature," within the meaning of sec. "the Bvidence Act 1905, of which the Court was bound to take judicial OL, XUN, 11