R v Eyles [1917] HCA 5; (1917) 23 CLR 1 (13 March 1917)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

The King Appellant; and Eyles Respondent.

H C of A

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

13 March 1917

Griffith C.J., Barton, Isaacs, Gavan Duffy and Rich JJ.

Knox K.C. (with him White), for the appellant.

L. J. McKean, for the respondent, did not argue that a new trial should not be directed.

The judgment of the Court, which was delivered by Griffith C.J., was as follows:—

Griffith C.J.,

Barton, Isaacs, Gavan Duffy and Rich JJ.

Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court are of opinion that the proper order to make is that there should be a new trial. It is obviously undesirable to express any opinion as to the merits of the case.

Order appealed from varied by ordering a new trial.

Solicitor for the appellant, J. V. Tillett, Crown Solicitor for New South Wales.

Solicitor for the respondent, W. D. McMahon, Sydney.