Quan Yick v Hinds - [1905] HCA 10

RESPONDENT. COMPLAINANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES. Lair of New South Wales-Lotteries-Imperial - Acts 4 Geo. IV. c. 60, and 5 Geo. IV.

83-Construction of 9 Geo. IV. C. 83, sec. 24. The Imperial Acts, t Geo. IV. c. 60, which, inter alia, makes it an offence to sell tickets in a lottery not authorized by that or some other Act of Parliament, and 5 Geo. IV. c. 83, as far as they relate to proceedings before Justices, are not in force in New South Wales.

In considering whether an Imperial Act passed after the settlement of the Colony of New South Wales, and before 9 Geo. IV. c. 83, can be " applied in the administration of justice" in New South Wales, within the meaning of sec. 24 of the latter Act, the test is whether the provisions of the Act under consideration were suitable to the conditions of the Colony, and capable of being reasonably applied there, when the 9 Geo. IV. e. 83 was passed.

Mitchell v. Ah King, 21 N.S.W. L.R., 64, and dictum in Anderson V. Ah Nam, (1904) 4 S.R. (N.S.W.), 492, overruled.

Attorney-General v. Edgley, 9 N.S. W. L.R., 157, approved. Decision of Pring J. (2nd December, 1904) reversed.

APPEAL from a decision of Pring J. in Chambers, upon a special case stated under the Justices Act (N.S.W.), No. 27 of 1902.

The following statement of the facts and proceedings is taken from the judgment of Barton J.

Quan Yick, the appellant, was prosecuted by police Sub- Inspector Hinds, the respondent, for selling a ticket in a Chinese

2 CLR 346

lottery known as 'pak-ah-pu." The information was laid under

the Imperial Act 4 Geo. IV. c. 60, S. 41, and it appeared that the

QUAN YICK

appellant did sell a ticket in a lottery not authorized by that or any other Act of Parliament, in terms of the section. The Sti pendiary Magistrate dismissed the charge on the ground that the Act in question was not in force in New South Wales, On a special case stated for the opinion of the Supreme Court under the Justices Act 1902, Pring J. answered the question whether the Act was in force, affirmatively, and directed that the case be remitted to the Magistrate accordingly.

The learned Judge based his decision on the opinion of the Full Court in Anderson v. Ah Nam 1. He did not deliver a detailed judgment because he relied on the reasons given by the Court in that case.

From that decision Quan Yick now appealed by special leave and the question is whether the Act 4 Geo. IV. c. 60 sec. 41 is in force in New South Wales.

The titles and the material sections of the various Statutes re ferred to appear in the judgments.

Dr. Cullen K.C. and Lamb (with them Watt), for the appellant The Act 4 Geo. IV. c. 60 was an Appropriation Act. Its main…

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 Quan Yick v Hinds

Details

AGLC: Quan Yick v Hinds [1905] HCA 10
Case: [1905] HCA 10
Decision Date: 10 April 1905

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Quan Yick v Hinds* concerned a dispute over the legality of a lottery conducted in New South Wales. The parties involved were Quan Yick, who was prosecuted for conducting the lottery, and Hinds, who was the informant. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the lottery conducted by Quan Yick was lawful under the prevailing laws of New South Wales, specifically considering the application of certain Imperial Acts. The court was required to interpret the scope and effect of Imperial legislation, namely 4 Geo. IV c. 60 and 5 Geo. IV c. 83, in the context of New South Wales law, and how these were affected by s 24 of 9 Geo. IV c. 83.

The High Court determined that the lottery in question was illegal. Their reasoning focused on the interpretation of the Imperial Acts, which prohibited lotteries. The court found that the provisions of s 24 of 9 Geo. IV c. 83, which allowed for the application of English law in New South Wales, did not operate to legalise the lottery. Instead, the court held that the lottery was contrary to the spirit and intent of the Imperial legislation that prohibited such activities.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Quan Yick for conducting an illegal lottery.

Orders