Young v Quaine [1910] HCA 1; (1910) 10 CLR 110 (1 March 1910)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Young and Rees Appellants; and Quaine Respondent.

Pease and Others Appellants; and Quaine Respondent.

H C of A

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

1 March 1910

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

Wise K.C., (with him Arthur), for the defendants.

Griffith C.J.

We think there is no ground for granting special leave to appeal in this case. The information accused the defendants of instigating certain persons to do an act in the nature of a strike, and then went on to describe the act, which is mentioned in the Statute, and is in its essence in the nature of a strike. If the offence had been charged in the bare words of the Statute without the videlicet the information would be good. The point, therefore, is at best one of extreme technicality. I see however, no reason for thinking that there is anything in it.

But if there were any such reason, this is not a case in which special leave to appeal should be granted, and that is so whether sec. 52 does or does not apply. It must not be assumed that we think it does not apply.

Barton J.

concurred.

O'Connor J.

concurred.

Isaacs J.

concurred.

Higgins J.

I wish to add that I concur upon the ground that this, being a criminal case, is not one in which special leave to appeal should be granted.

Solicitors, for the applicants, J. Woolf for Reid & Reid, Newcastle.