Spence v Ravenscroft - [1914] HCA 44

COMPLAINANT, RAVENSCROFT

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES. Sunday Trading-Transaction - not involving human labour-Goods obtained from

slot-machine-Police Offences Act 1901 (N.S. W.) (No. 5 of 1901), sec. 61.

Sec. 61 of the Police Offences Act 1901 provides that " Whosoever trades or deals, or keeps open any shop, store, or other place, for the purpose of trading or dealing on Sunday (the shops or houses of butchers, bakers, fish- mongers, and greengrocers, until the hour of ten in the forenoon, and of

18 CLR 350

bakers, between the hours of one and two in the afternoon, and of apothe- caries at any hour, only excepted), shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three pounds."

Held, by Griffith C.J. and Gavan Duffy and Rich JJ. (Isaacs J. dissenting), that no offence within that section is constituted unless something is done by the alleged offender which involves human labour or attention on Sunday.

Held, therefore, that where goods were obtained on a Sunday from a slot- machine belonging to the defendant by a person who placed money therein, an information against the defendant for trading on Sunday was properly

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Ferguson J.): Spence V. Ravenscrott, 30 W.N. (N.S.W.) 201, affirmed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

At the Sydney Water Police Court an information was heard by a stipendiary magistrate by which James Spence, the com- plainant, charged that on Sunday, 19th October 1913, the defen- dant Lionel Bebington Ravenscroft did, on board the steamship Balgowlah, belonging to the Port Jackson and Manly Steamship Co. Ltd., in the harbour of Port Jackson in the Metropolitan Police District, trade by selling cigarettes. On the hearing there was put in evidence an agreement between the defendant and the shipping Company, by which the Company agreed to place a certain number of penny-in-the-slot machines belonging to the defendant upon each of seven of the Company's steamships, including two upon the Balgowlah, for a period of twelve months from 17th September 1913, with an option of renewal, and the defendant agreed to pay to the Company £60 per annum for the privilege. A constable of police gave evidence that on Sunday, 19th October 1913, he went on board the Balgowlah and saw there a penny-in-the-slot machine with directions printed thereon for obtaining cigarettes from it; that he placed threepence in the slot of the machine, pulled the slide, and received a packet of cigarettes from it; and that he saw several other passengers obtain cigarettes in a similar manner.

The magistrate held "that the machine, being an inanimate thing, could not be considered to be the defendant's agent, and that as no personal service was rendered by any person the defendant could not be convicted of the offence of trading as

18 CLR 351

charged." He then, on the complainant's application, stated a H. case for the opinion of the Supreme Court, the question being…

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 Spence v Ravenscroft

Details

AGLC: Spence v Ravenscroft [1914] HCA 44
Case: [1914] HCA 44
Decision Date: 17 August 1914

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The complainant, James Spence, appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had affirmed a magistrate's dismissal of an information. The information charged the defendant, Lionel Bebington Ravenscroft, with trading on a Sunday by selling cigarettes from a slot machine located on a steamship. The transaction involved a passenger placing money into the machine and receiving cigarettes in return.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether the defendant's conduct, specifically the operation of a slot machine that dispensed goods on a Sunday, constituted "trading or dealing" within the meaning of section 61 of the *Police Offences Act 1901* (NSW). This section prohibited trading or dealing on Sundays, with certain exceptions.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Griffith C.J., Gavan Duffy and Rich JJ., held that an offence under section 61 required an act involving human labour or attention on the part of the alleged offender on the Sunday in question. They reasoned that the purpose of the legislation was directed towards personal conduct on Sundays and that the word "trades" in the section was limited to such personal acts. As the transaction was conducted solely through an inanimate machine without direct human intervention by the defendant or his agent on the Sunday, no offence was committed. Isaacs J., dissenting, argued that the nature of the transaction, being a sale of goods, was not altered by the day on which it occurred, and that the defendant, by making the machine available, was engaged in trading.

The appeal was dismissed, with the High Court affirming the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant was therefore not found guilty of trading on Sunday.

Orders