Legal Research
Cases
Crothers v Sheil

Crothers v Sheil

Case [1933] HCA 42 31 August 1933

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Constitutional Law

Statutory Interpretation

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

49 CLR 399

RESPONDENT. DEFENDANT, Evidence-Milk for consumption or use in specified area-Sale to retailer-Know- - H. C.

ledge of vendor-Inference-Millo Act 1931 (N.S.W.) (No. 59 of 1931), secs. 26 (1)*, 27 (1), (3)*. Justices-Information-Defect in substance or in form-Defect curable by amendment Aug. 4, 8, 31.

- -Failure to lay information in name of Milk Board-Laid by authorized person in own name-Milk Act 1931 (N.S.W.) (No. 59 of 1931), sec. 80 (1) -Justices Act 1902 (N.S.W.) (No. 27 of 1902), sec. 65*. Constitutional Law-Interference with inter-State trade-Compulsory vesting in Milk

Board of milk produced for consumption or use within specified area-Possible remote effect of expropriation-Milk Act 1931 (N.S.W.) (No. 59 of 1931), secs. 26 (1), (3)*-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), sec. 92. Constitutional Law-Duties of excise-Deductions from proceeds of milk compulsorily

acquired-Administrative expenses payable out of deductions-Milk Act 1931 (N.S.W.) (No. 59 of 1931), secs. 23 (1)*, 26 (1), (3)*, 28 (2)*-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), sec. 90.

On the hearing of an information laid against the respondent, alleging that he had sold milk for consumption or use in the metropolitan milk distributing district to a person other than the Milk Board in contravention of sec. 27 (3) The Milk Act 1931 (N.S.W.) pro-

"(1) From and after a day to be vides, by sec. 23 (1), as follows " As

appointed by the Governor and notified soon as practicable after its appoint-

by proclamation published in the Gazette, milk supplied for consumption or use as the Board may deem necessary or

within the metropolitan milk distribut- desirable, the Board shall determine, after inquiry to be held in the manner

absolutely vested in and be the property prescribed by regulations, the minimum price or prices which may be paid to a

after the day so appointed such milk dairyman for milk." By sec. 26:

shall become the absolute property of

49 CLR 400

of the Milk Act 1931 (N.S.W.), evidence was given that the respondent was a registered dairyman and was authorized by the Board to supply raw milk for consumption or use within any milk distributing district; that it was subse- quently notified, by proclamation, that all milk supplied for consumption or use within the metropolitan milk distributing district should become abso- lutely vested in and be the property of the Board that, thereafter, the respon- dent sold large quantities of milk daily to W. Bros., whose employee collected it from the respondent's dairy situate outside the district; and that W. Bros., who carried on the business of selling milk by retail within the district, bought the milk for consumption or use within the district in the ordinary course of their business. There was no direct evidence that the respondent knew any- thing about W. Bros. other than that they purchased milk from him, and that he had said that if he were convicted he would stop sending his milk to Sydney immediately.

Held, that the evidence supported the inference…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Crothers v Sheil

Details

AGLC: Crothers v Sheil [1933] HCA 42
Case: [1933] HCA 42
Decision Date: 31 August 1933

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Crothers, an officer of the Milk Board, laid an information against the respondent, Sheil, a dairyman, alleging a contravention of section 27(3) of the Milk Act 1931 (NSW). The charge was that Sheil sold milk for consumption or use in the metropolitan milk distributing district to a person other than the Milk Board. The Supreme Court of New South Wales, by majority, had reversed the magistrate's conviction, finding insufficient evidence that Sheil knew the milk was intended for use within the district.

The High Court was required to determine two principal legal issues. Firstly, whether the evidence supported an inference that Sheil supplied the milk with the knowledge and belief that it was intended for consumption or use within the metropolitan milk distributing district, thereby establishing the offence charged. Secondly, the Court considered whether the omission to lay the information in the name of the Milk Board, as stipulated by section 80(1) of the Milk Act 1931, constituted a defect curable by amendment under section 65 of the Justices Act 1902 (NSW). The Court also considered, and rejected, arguments that the Milk Act contravened sections 90 and 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution.

The High Court, by majority, held that the evidence was sufficient to support the inference that Sheil knew the milk was intended for consumption within the metropolitan district. This conclusion was based on the respondent's regular supply of milk to Woulfe Bros., who operated a retail milk business within that district, and Sheil's statement that he would cease sending milk to Sydney if convicted, indicating an awareness of the destination of his milk. The Court also affirmed the Supreme Court's decision that the failure to lay the information in the name of the Milk Board was a curable defect in form, not substance, under section 65 of the Justices Act 1902.

Consequently, the High Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on the sufficiency of evidence, reinstating the conviction. The Court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision regarding the curability of the defect in the information.

Orders