Saunders v Borthistle - [1904] HCA 13

[ ] SAUNDERS BORTHISTLE

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Pastures Protection Act, 1902, No. 111, secs. 4, 97-" Travelling sheep Drover" H. U. OF A.

- Person in charge of sheep trarelling less than 40 miles- -Travelling statement not necessary under sec. 97-Justices Act, 1902, No. 27, secs. 101, 105, 106, 107 -Appeal by way of special care-Order made by Judge sitting in Chambers under sec. 107-Judgment of Supreme Court-Appeal to High Court -- --Constitu June 20, 21. tion of the Commonwealth, sec. 73.

A person in charge of sheep travelling to a place less than 40 miles distant from the run on which they are ordinarily depastured is not a "drover in charge of any travelling sheep" within the meaning of sec. 97 (1) of the Pastures Protec- tion Act, 1902, and therefore he is not guilty of any offence under (2) of that section, if he fails to produce a "travelling statement" to " 'any inspector, police constable or justice, &."

King v. Cundy, 15 (N.S.W.), W.N., 158, approved. Order of Pring, J., 21 (N.S.W.) W.N., 7, reversed. An order made by a Judge of the Supreme Court sitting in Chambers, in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by sec. 107 of the Justices Act, 1902, is a judgment of the Supreme Court from which an appeal will lie to the High Court under sec. 73 of the Constitution.

In re Paul, (1902) 2 S.R. (N.S.W.), 196, not followed.

THIS was an appeal from an order made by Pring, J., in Chambers, 21 (N.S.W.) W.N., 7. The following statement of the proceedings and of the facts is taken from the judgment of Griffith, C.J. -The appellant was charged before Justices with having committed a breach of sec. 97 of the Pastures Protection Act, 1902, No. 111 (a), in that he, being a drover in charge of certain travel- (a) Pastures Protection Act, 1902 :-

Sec. 4. In this Act, unless the context or subject-matter otherwise indicates

1 CLR 380

ling sheep, did not produce a travelling statement upon demand to

a police constable, as required by sub-sec. (ii.) of that section. The facts were admitted, namely, that the appellant, on the date mentioned in the information, was in charge of about 1280 sheep, which were being driven by him from the run on which they were ordinarily depastured to another run less than forty miles away, that the sheep were not travelling, and that the appellant was not a person in charge of sheep travelling, to a place upwards of forty miles distant from that on which they were when their permit to travel, or travelling statement, was granted, and that the appellant did not produce a travelling statement upon demand to a police constable. The magistrate, relying on the case of King V. Cundy, 15 (N.S.W.) W.N., 158, dismissed the information, and the complainant, who is a sergeant of police, appealed by way of special case stated for the opinion of the…

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 Saunders v Borthistle

Details

AGLC: Saunders v Borthistle [1904] HCA 13
Case: [1904] HCA 13
Decision Date: 22 June 1904

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Saunders v Borthistle*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute concerning the movement of sheep. The appellant, Saunders, was charged with an offence under the *Pastures Protection Act 1902* (NSW) for travelling sheep without a proper permit. The respondent, Borthistle, was the inspector who laid the charge.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the appellant had lawfully travelled the sheep in question, specifically whether the sheep were travelling in accordance with the provisions of the *Pastures Protection Act 1902*. This involved an interpretation of the Act's requirements regarding the movement of livestock and the necessity of holding the appropriate travelling stock permits.

The Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the relevant sections of the *Pastures Protection Act 1902*. It was held that the Act imposed strict requirements on the movement of sheep, and that the appellant had failed to comply with these requirements. The Court applied the principle that statutory provisions designed to prevent the spread of disease and to regulate the movement of livestock must be adhered to, and that a failure to do so would result in a breach of the law.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the lower court.

Orders