Wilcox v Donohoe [1905] HCA 68

Wilcox v Donohoe [1905] HCA 68

The process of making beer for the purposes of the Beer Excise Act 1901 does not include increases in alcoholic content due to secondary fermentation in bottles after brewing. Thus, the appellant did not make beer exceeding 2% alcohol as required for conviction, and the conviction should be quashed.

Parties
Appellant: Wilcox; Respondent: Donohoe
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 1905
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Pring J., Supreme Court of New South Wales (chambers), After Conviction and Fine by Magistrate
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Beer Excise, Brewer's Licence, Federal Jurisdiction, Statutory Prohibition, Appeal to High Court, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Taxation/excise Beer Excise Brewer's Licence Federal Jurisdiction Statutory Prohibition Appeal to High Court +1 more

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

Parties

Wilcox

Appellant

Donohoe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Pring J., Supreme Court of New South Wales (chambers), After Conviction and Fine by Magistrate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether making beer without a licence within the meaning of sec. 8 of the Beer Excise Act 1901 includes a subsequent increase in alcoholic strength due to secondary fermentation in bottles.
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court of New South Wales had jurisdiction to entertain an application for prohibition under sec. 137 of the Excise Act 1901 when sitting in federal jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The process of making beer for the purposes of the Beer Excise Act 1901 does not include increases in alcoholic content due to secondary fermentation in bottles after brewing. Thus, the appellant did not make beer exceeding 2% alcohol as required for conviction, and the conviction should be quashed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • Rule nisi made absolute to quash the conviction