Robert Alexander v Daniel Menary [1921] HCA 34

Robert Alexander v Daniel Menary [1921] HCA 34

Section 50(2) does not place the burden on the defendant for charges under section 47; the Magistrate was entitled to determine the intention of the appellants as a factual matter, and there was evidence from which the finding could be sustained.

Parties
Appellant: Charles Boyd Alexander; Appellant: Robert Alexander; Respondent: Daniel Menary
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 1921
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales; Decision of Magistrate Reinstated
Outcome
appeal allowed; orders of Supreme Court set aside; decisions of Magistrate restored
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Diseased Animals, Consignment for Sale, Statutory Interpretation

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Boyd Alexander

Appellant

Robert Alexander

Appellant

Daniel Menary

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales; Decision of Magistrate Reinstated

  1. 1 Does the burden of proof provision in section 50(2) of the Cattle Slaughtering and Diseased Animals and Meat Act 1902 (NSW) apply to a charge made under section 47?
  2. 2 Was there evidence to support the Magistrate's finding that the animals were consigned for inspection, not for sale?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 50(2) does not place the burden on the defendant for charges under section 47; the Magistrate was entitled to determine the intention of the appellants as a factual matter, and there was evidence from which the finding could be sustained.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; orders of Supreme Court set aside; decisions of Magistrate restored

Orders

  • Appeals allowed
  • Orders of Supreme Court dated 3rd December 1920 set aside