Robert Alexander v Daniel Menary

This case involved appeals by Charles Boyd Alexander and Robert Alexander to the High Court of Australia following a decision by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Alexanders had been charged in separate informations with unlawfully consigning diseased animals for sale, contrary to section 47 of the *Cattle Slaughtering and Diseased Animals and Meat Act 1902* (NSW). The Magistrate who heard the initial informations dismissed them, finding that the cattle were consigned for inspection, not for sale. The Supreme Court, however, held that the Magistrate's determination was erroneous in point of law, partly on the basis that section 50(2) of the Act placed the burden of proof on the defendants to show the animals were not consigned for sale.

The High Court was required to determine two principal legal issues. Firstly, whether section 50(2) of the *Cattle Slaughtering and Diseased Animals and Meat Act 1902* (NSW), which states that the burden of proof lies on the party charged, applied to charges brought under section 47 of the same Act. Secondly, the Court had to consider whether there was any evidence upon which the Magistrate could lawfully find that the cattle were consigned for inspection rather than for sale, as the Supreme Court had suggested there was no such evidence.

The High Court reasoned that section 50(2) of the Act, which shifts the burden of proof, relates specifically to the powers of inspection and seizure granted by section 50 and to proceedings that follow from the exercise of those powers. The Court concluded that this provision does not alter the burden of proof for charges laid under section 47. Furthermore, the Court found that there was sufficient evidence before the Magistrate to support his finding that the animals were consigned for inspection. This evidence included the drover marking 21 head for inspection and preparing relevant documentation, and the defendants' explanation that lumps on the cattle could be caused by prickly-pear thorns rather than disease, necessitating separation for inspection. The Court held that the intention of the defendants was a question of fact for the Magistrate to determine, and that his finding was open to him on the evidence presented.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the Supreme Court and restoring the Magistrate's original decisions dismissing the informations. The Court declared that no question of law arose on the special cases stated by the Magistrate and ordered that the respondent pay the appellants' costs in the Supreme Court.