APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
On 13th February 1914, at the Central Police Court, Sydney, before George Henry Smithers, a stipendiary magistrate, on a complaint made by Thomas Robertson under sec. 6 of the Obscene and Indecent Publications Act 1901, an order was made under sec. 9 against William James Chidley that certain books (inter alia) seized while in the possession of Chidley should be destroyed as being obscene publications, and Chidley was also convicted under sec. 15 of being the owner of the books, and sentenced to imprisonment for two months.
Rules nisi for prohibition were obtained by Chidley in respect of the order and the conviction.
The Full Court by a majority (Pring and Sly JJ., Cullen C.J. dissenting) held that the books were obscene publications, and they discharged both rules nisi: Ex parte Chidley 1.
From that decision Chidley, by special leave, appealed to the High Court.
On the hearing of the appeal the question was raised whether, in accordance with the practice as stated in Eather v. The King 2, the special leave to appeal should not be rescinded.
Cowan, for the appellant. Alec Thomson, for the respondents.
Cur. adv. vult. The judgment of the Court was delivered by
GRIFFITH C.J. In this case my brethren are of opinion that the special leave to appeal should be rescinded. Personally, I am unable to come to that conclusion.
Special leave to appeal rescinded. Solicitor, for the appellant, T. M. Kemmis. Solicitor, for the respondents, J. v. Tillett, Crown Solicitor for New South Wales.
114 S.R. (N.S.W.), 97. 219 C.L.R., 409