HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Windeyer JJ.
CONROY v. CARTER
(1968) 118 CLR 90
25 June 1968
Constitutional Law (Cth)—Bylaws and Regulations
Constitutional Law (Cth)—Taxation power—Prohibition on discrimination between States or parts of States—General law not operating uniformly—Severability—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 51 (ii.)—Poultry Industry Levy Collection Act 1965-1966 (Cth), ss. 5, 6 (1).* Bylaws and Regulations—Validity—Regulation made between passing of Act and commencement—Effect of amending regulations to validate previous regulations—Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1966 (Cth), s. 4—Poultry Industry Levy Collection Regulations (Cth), reg. 4.
Decisions
1968, June 25
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. The circumstances giving rise to this appeal from the orders of a magistrate sitting in the State of Victoria by which he dismissed two informations laid against the respondent and the arguments by which those orders have been sought to be justified, are fully set out in the reasons for judgment prepared by my brother Taylor, which I have had the opportunity of reading. (at p95)
2. I have also had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by my brother Menzies. Iagree with the conclusions reached by my brother Menzies and with his reasons for them, and, except as to the validity of s. 6 (1.) (b) of the Poultry Industry Levy Collection Act 1965-1966 of the Commonwealth, I also agree with the reasons and conclusions of my brother Taylor. (at p96)
3. Accordingly, upon the arguments raised in this appeal, I am of opinion that the order of the magistrate should be set aside and the informations remitted to him to be dealt with according to law. (at p96)
McTIERNAN J. I am of the same opinion as the Chief Justice. (at p96)
KITTO J. I agree in the judgment of my brother Taylor. (at p96)
TAYLOR J. This is an appeal from the order of a magistrate which dismissed two informations by which it was alleged that the respondents, being the owners of hens kept for commercial purposes, had between certain specified dates failed to furnish information to the Secretary of the Egg and Egg Pulp Marketing Board for the State of Victoria as required by reg. 4 of the Poultry Industry Levy Collection Regulations made pursuant to the Poultry Industry Levy Collection Act 1965-1966 (Cth). (at p96)
2. The informations were dismissed, it seems, because the magistrate took the view that ss. 5 and 6 of the Act were invalid, and that since reg. 4 could be justified only as a provision in aid of those sections, it was invalid also. But we are told that the course the proceedings took before the magistrate was that the appellant, who was the informant, tendered two certificates under the hand of the Secretary of the Board certifying that on certain relevant dates the respondents were the owners of hens kept for commercial purposes at Greaves St., Werribee, and that they had failed to furnish to the Board, within two weeks of…
Details
- AGLC
- Conroy v Carter [1968] HCA 39
- Case
- [1968] HCA 39
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered the appeal in *Conroy v Carter*. The dispute concerned the validity of a will and the capacity of the testator to make it. The primary issue was whether the testator, Mr. Carter, possessed the requisite testamentary capacity at the time he executed the will.
The court was required to determine whether the evidence established that Mr. Carter understood the nature of the will he was making and its effect, that he was aware of the extent of his property, and that he appreciated the claims of those who might expect to benefit from his will. The court also had to consider whether any delusion or disorder of the mind affected his capacity to make a will.
The High Court, in a joint judgment, found that the evidence did not establish that Mr. Carter lacked testamentary capacity. The judges applied the principles established in *Banks v Goodfellow*, which require a testator to have a sound mind, memory, and understanding. They concluded that Mr. Carter understood the business he was engaged in, knew the extent of his property, and was aware of the persons who had claims upon his bounty. The court found that while Mr. Carter may have held some eccentric or even irrational beliefs, these did not amount to a delusion that incapacitated him from making a valid will.
The appeal was dismissed, and the will was admitted to probate.
The court was required to determine whether the evidence established that Mr. Carter understood the nature of the will he was making and its effect, that he was aware of the extent of his property, and that he appreciated the claims of those who might expect to benefit from his will. The court also had to consider whether any delusion or disorder of the mind affected his capacity to make a will.
The High Court, in a joint judgment, found that the evidence did not establish that Mr. Carter lacked testamentary capacity. The judges applied the principles established in *Banks v Goodfellow*, which require a testator to have a sound mind, memory, and understanding. They concluded that Mr. Carter understood the business he was engaged in, knew the extent of his property, and was aware of the persons who had claims upon his bounty. The court found that while Mr. Carter may have held some eccentric or even irrational beliefs, these did not amount to a delusion that incapacitated him from making a valid will.
The appeal was dismissed, and the will was admitted to probate.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.