Pearce v Jones [1917] HCA 50

Metpournn, Sept. 24.

Barton, Isaacs and Gavan Duffy JJ.

HIGH COURT

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

PEARCE... . 1.) =e

DEFENDANT, AND JONES ON ee INFORMANT, ' + DEFENDANT, AND JONES 5 5 E § . é . . Respro <1 InrorMaNtT,

ON APPEAL FROM A COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS OF VICTORIA.

that no person shall, by word of mouth, "(b) make statements prejudice the recruiting of any of His Majesty's Forces," and any person contravenes this regulation, he shall be guilty of an against" the War Precautions Act.

Held, that a person who, at a meeting, seconds a resolution which c such a statement is, equally with the mover, guilty of the offence, but t person who as chairman of a meeting merely puts such a resolution t vote of the meeting is not guilty of the offence. ;

OF AUSTRALIA.

and put to the meeting by the chairman, that in the opinion of the Council the Executive of the Political Labour Council should call upon all Labour _ Members of Parliament to refuse to assist in-recruiting.

Held, that the motion was a statement likely to prejudice the recruiting of _ His Majesty's Forces within reg. 28 (b) of the War Precautions Regulations 1915.

. eALs from a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria.

In the Court of Petty Sessions at Melbourne, before a Police strate, two informations were heard whereby William Percival mes charged that Alfred John Pearce, in the one case, and William ith, in the other, did. contrary to the War Precautions Regulations 915, "by word of mouth make statements likely to prejudice the

e Political Labour Council Executive should call upon all Labour bers of Parliament to refuse to assist in recruiting"; that the solution was seconded by the defendant Smith, and that it was to the meeting by the defendant Pearce, who was the chairman the meeting, and. was carried. The Magistrate convicted both defendants, and each of them appealed to the High Court by vay of order to review on the grounds (inter alia), (1) that there was vidence that either of the defendants by word of mouth made ny statement; (2) that there was no evidence that either of the defendants made any statement likely to prejudice the recruiting 'His Majesty's Forces within the meaning of reg. 28; (3) that the 'trate was wrong in determining that either to second the resolu- in question or to put it to the meeting was an offence within the ing of reg. 28; and (4) that certain evidence was wrongly two appeals were heard together.