Menges v R [1919] HCA 37

Menges v R [1919] HCA 37

The initiation document, regardless of its title, fulfilled the statutory requirement for an information, and there is no legal requirement for such to be sworn. On the verdict, the jury, by finding the accused guilty of fraudulently branding in the context of the information and directions, necessarily found the animal belonged to another, satisfying the legal standard.

Parties
Appellant: Henry Walter Harvey Menges; Respondent: The King
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 1919
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court of Australia Appeal From Magistrate's Court of Norfolk Island
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence affirmed.
Legal Topics
Information Vs Indictment, Requirement of Oath in Criminal Information, Cattle Stealing, Fraudulent Branding, Appeals Procedure, Interpretation of Norfolk Island and NSW Laws
Criminal Law Information Vs Indictment Requirement of Oath in Criminal Information Cattle Stealing Fraudulent Branding Appeals Procedure Interpretation of Norfolk Island and NSW Laws

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Walter Harvey Menges

Appellant

The King

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court of Australia Appeal From Magistrate's Court of Norfolk Island

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution was properly instituted by an unsworn document called an 'indictment' signed by the senior officer of police under the Administration Law 1913 (Norfolk Island).
  2. 2 Whether the verdict of 'not guilty of cattle stealing but guilty of fraudulently branding' was legally sufficient without an explicit statement identifying the property branded as belonging to another.

Ratio Decidendi

The initiation document, regardless of its title, fulfilled the statutory requirement for an information, and there is no legal requirement for such to be sworn. On the verdict, the jury, by finding the accused guilty of fraudulently branding in the context of the information and directions, necessarily found the animal belonged to another, satisfying the legal standard.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction and six months' imprisonment with hard labour stands