Carberry v Cook [1906] HCA 33; (1906) 3 CLR 995 (25 May 1906)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Carberry Defendant, Appellant; and Cook Complainant, Respondent.

H C of A

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

25 May 1906

Griffith C.J., Barton and O'Connor JJ.

A. Thompson, for the applicant.

Griffith C.J.

The question whether sec. 20 of the Justices Act 1902 can be applied before the conviction or order has been made is a purely abstract question so far as the present case is concerned. The applicant was charged with committing an offence at Glen Innes, and it was necessary by sec. 107 of the Liquor Act 1898 that the charge should be heard before the nearest Court of Petty Sessions. This Court is now solemnly asked to say that the magistrate sitting in the Court of Petty Sessions at Glen Innes ought not to take judicial notice of the fact that that Court is the nearest Court of Petty Sessions to Glen Innes. I am of opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court on that point was plainly right. No doubt, justices ought to satisfy themselves that they are acting within their jurisdiction; and if at the close of the case for the complainant an objection is taken that the matter does not appear to be within their jurisdiction, they ought to hear evidence, and satisfy themselves of the fact, and if necessary, re-open the case for that purpose.

I am of opinion, therefore, that the application for special leave should be refused.

Barton and O'Connor JJ.

concurred.

Special leave refused.

Solicitor, for the applicant, P. P. Abbott by Cresswell & Hobbs.