Symons v Schiffmann [1915] HCA 65

Symons v Schiffmann [1915] HCA 65

Where the prosecution elects to call evidence in a prosecution under section 33 of the Customs Act 1901-1914, section 255 does not apply to shift the onus; nor did the evidence adduced compel a finding that the defendant had interfered with the goods while in Customs' control.

Parties
Informant/appellant: Samuel Symons; Defendant/respondent: Leonard Peter Schiffmann
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 1915
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From Court of General Sessions of Victoria on a Case Stated
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Averment in Information, Burden of Proof, Interference With Customs Goods, Case Stated Procedure, Appeal Method
Customs Law Criminal Law Procedure Averment in Information Burden of Proof Interference With Customs Goods Case Stated Procedure Appeal Method

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Symons

Informant/appellant

Leonard Peter Schiffmann

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From Court of General Sessions of Victoria on a Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence proved the offence of interfering with goods under the control of Customs as alleged under sec. 33 of the Customs Act 1901-1914
  2. 2 Whether sec. 255 of the Customs Act (deeming averments proved in absence of contrary evidence) applied when the prosecution elected to call evidence
  3. 3 Whether a case stated under sec. 139 of the Justices Act 1890 (Vict.) properly brought the appeal to the High Court

Ratio Decidendi

Where the prosecution elects to call evidence in a prosecution under section 33 of the Customs Act 1901-1914, section 255 does not apply to shift the onus; nor did the evidence adduced compel a finding that the defendant had interfered with the goods while in Customs' control.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.