Durrant v Gardner

[2000] QDC 198

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Durrant v. Gardner [2000] QDC 198

PARTIES:

JILLIAN ELIZABETH DURRANT (Appellant)
v.
MYLES JOHN GARDNER (Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No. 4197 of 1999
7122-5 of 1999

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court Inala

DELIVERED ON:

23 June 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 May 2000

JUDGE:

McGill D.C.J.

ORDER:

Appeal Dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

TIME, WEIGHT AND MEASURES – time – computation of time – what days included –fractions of a day

ANIMALS – registration of dogs – term of registration – Brisbane City Local Law (Keeping and Control of Animals) 1997 s.19(2);  Brisbane City Local Law Policy No 1, ss. 2, 8

INFERIOR COURTS – Magistrates Courts – procedure – orders for costs – costs of complainant for summary prosecution – Justices Act 1886 s.157, 158B

Lester v. Garland (1808) 15 Ves.Jun. 248, 33 ER 748 - considered
Cartwright v. MacCormack Trafalgar Insurance Ltd (1963) 1 WLR 18 - distinguished
Forster v. Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 – considered
Prowse v. McIntyre (1961) 111 CLR 264 – considered
Re: Schlesinger (1970) 92 WN (NSW) 753 - cited
Associated Beauty Aids Pty Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1965) 113 CLR 662 - considered
Beare v. Ward [1928] SASR 1 – followed
Haslock v. Blith [1968] TAS SR1 – followed
Campbell v. Strangeways (1877) 3 CPD 105 – followed
Washbourne v. State Energy Commission (WA) (1992) 8 WAR 188 – applied
Keating v. Kneipp (Townsville Appeal 28/89, Wylie DCJ, 20.2.90, unreported) – distinguished
Norton v. Morphett (1995) 83 A.Crim.R. 90 – considered

COUNSEL:

H P Bowskill for the appellant
No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

D Askern for the appellant
No appearance for the respondent

1. On 24 September 1999 two complaints came before a Stipendiary Magistrate at Inala.  The first alleged that on 16 September 1998 the respondent was the keeper of a dog named Jessy, which dog did attack a man in Bamboo Street, Inala and that on that day the respondent was the keeper of a dog, namely Jessy, of an age of three months or over which was not a registered dog and which was ordinarily kept at particular premises.  The second complaint alleged similar offences in respect of a dog named Lucky.  The Magistrate dismissed the complaint in respect of the dog named Lucky;  in respect to the dog named Jessy, he found the charge proved that this dog did attack a man, but dismissed the charge of keeping an unregistered dog. 

1. For the offence for which he was convicted, the respondent was required to enter into a recognisance in the sum of $500 to be of good behaviour for six months, on condition that he erect such fences as were required to keep dogs enclosed on his property except when under a leash held by a person capable of controlling them.  The Magistrate made an order that the respondent pay court costs of $59 and $70 witnesses expenses, but would not make any order for payment of…