Young and Rees v Quaine [1910] HCA 1

Young and Rees v Quaine [1910] HCA 1

The information sufficiently charged an offence under sec. 42 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1908 (N.S.W.). The conviction was good. Special leave to appeal was refused, particularly as the case was criminal and no substantial grounds existed.

Parties
Applicant: Robert Young; Applicant: Daniel Rees; Applicant: Thomas Pease; Respondent: James Quaine; Applicant: Eight other defendants
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 1910
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Decision on Special Leave to Appeal
Outcome
special leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Information and Conviction, Duplicity, Offence Disclosure, Special Leave to Appeal, Habeas Corpus
Criminal Law Information and Conviction Duplicity Offence Disclosure Special Leave to Appeal Habeas Corpus

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Young

Applicant

Daniel Rees

Applicant

Thomas Pease

Applicant

James Quaine

Respondent

Eight other defendants

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Decision on Special Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the informations disclosed an offence under sec. 42 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1908 (N.S.W.)
  2. 2 Whether the convictions were bad for duplicity or uncertainty
  3. 3 Whether special leave to appeal in a criminal case should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The information sufficiently charged an offence under sec. 42 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1908 (N.S.W.). The conviction was good. Special leave to appeal was refused, particularly as the case was criminal and no substantial grounds existed.

Court Disposition

special leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • special leave to appeal refused for all applicants