Mathews v Foggitt Jones Ltd - [1926] HCA 13

MATHEWS AND ANOTHER

APPELLANTS;

FOGGITT JONES LIMITED

RESPONDENT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES. Abattoirs / Meat inspection - Bringing "carcase or any portion of carcase" into

certain area-Whether sausages portion of carcuse-Newcastle District Abattoir and Sale-yards Act 1912 (N.S.W.) (No. 49), sec. 19.

Sec. 19 of the Newcastle District Abattoir and Sale-yards Act 1912 (N.S.W.) provides that "the carcase or any portion of the carcase" " of any animal slaughtered outside a certain area shall not be brought into that area except MELBOURNE, under certain conditions.

Held, by Knox C.J. and Gavan Duffy J. (Isaacs J. dissenting), that the fact that sausages, the composition of which was unknown except that they were manufactured from either pork or beef or both from animals slaughtered outside the area, had been brought into the area without compliance with the conditions stated in the section, did not constitute the offence of bringing into the area portion of a carcase or carcases without compliance with those conditions.

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Campbell J.): Ex parte Foggitt Jones Ltd., (1925) 43 N.S.W.W.N. 8, affirmed.

37 CLR 456

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

At the Court of Petty Sessions at Newcastle an information was heard whereby Henry Ernest John Mathews, an officer of the Newcastle District Abattoir Board, charged that Foggitt Jones Ltd. did on 15th October 1925 ' cause to be brought into the district of the Newcastle District Abattoir Board and saveloys for human consumption within the said district without compliance in respect of the said portion of the said carcase or carcases with the conditions set out in sec. 19 of the Newcastle District Abattoir and Sale-yards Act 1912, that is to say, that the said portion of the said carcase or carcases was not accompanied by a certificate signed by an inspector of slaughtering duly appointed and approved by the Board of Health that at the time of slaughtering the said carcase or portion thereof was duly inspected and free from disease and without causing the said portion to be taken to the abattoir appointed under the said Act or to some place appointed by the said Board for inspection by the inspector of the said Board."

The evidence given as to the offence having been committed was that of the informant, who said that on 15th October 1925 he went to the defendant's business premises in Newcastle, where he saw the defendant's manager. The evidence then continued :-"I asked him " (the manager) " if he had received any consignment of small goods from Maitland that day. He said 'Yes.' I asked him if it was accompanied by an inspector's certificate. I viewed the consignment. He took me to it and showed it to me. asked him if it was accompanied by an inspector's certificate that it was inspected during slaughter. I then asked him if these goods were manufactured from pork and beef carcases…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mathews v Foggitt Jones Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1926] HCA 13
Decision Date: 27 May 1926

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mathews, was charged with an offence under section 19 of the *Newcastle District Abattoir and Sale-yards Act 1912* (N.S.W.) for bringing a portion of a carcase into a prohibited area. The respondent, Foggitt Jones Ltd, was the prosecutor. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, comprising Knox CJ, Isaacs and Gavan Duffy JJ.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether sausages, which were the subject of the charge, constituted a "carcase or any portion of carcase" within the meaning of section 19 of the Act.

The Court considered the definition of "carcase" and the process by which sausages are made. It was held that sausages, being manufactured products derived from meat but not in their original form, were not a "carcase or any portion of carcase" as contemplated by the legislation. The Act was intended to regulate the movement of raw meat and animal products in their natural state, not processed goods.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was set aside.

Orders