Liston v Davies Relator [1937] HCA 22

Rich. Dixon, visions of Order LIL, rules 31-39, of the Rules of the Supreme Court 19 weritt and ty, 'The foundation and history of the jurisdiction to allow proceedings

warranto at the relation of a private prosecutor discussed. Bridge v. Bowen, (1916) 21 C.L.R. 582, considered.

Leave to appeal from decisions of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Gav Duffy J., and the Full Court (on appeal from Lowe J.): R. v. Listons | parte Davies, (1937) V.L.R. 222) refused.

Apptication for special leave to appeal from the Supreme Victoria.

On 6th November 1936 an election to fill an extraordinary as councillor in the Smith ward of the city of Melbourne was Three candidates stood for election, David Taylor Norris John James Liston and Robert Lyall. The election was held a to the system of preferential voting and the candidate first eliminated. His second preference votes were then di

between Davies and Liston. As a result of the election Liston was 4. ©. or A.

declared elected by a majority of twelve votes over Davies. On 26th November 1936 an order nisi was obtained by Davies for leave to exhibit an information of quo warranto against Liston. From the affidavits it appeared that over fifty votes which were invalid by reason of impersonation, most of which were indentifiable, were cast at the election and were reckoned at the final ascertainment of the poll. On the return of the order nisi Gavan Duffy J. held that it was insufficient to allege merely that there were more invalid yotes than the successful candidate's majority, and the order nisi was amended by adding an allegation that the impersonated votes were for Liston; the order nisi was then made absolute, but this was done without any further affidavit supporting this statement. _ Against this decision Liston applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court, which was refused, but without prejudice to his making a later application. An information was then filed by Davies alleging that fifty-six votes were cast in favour of Liston all of which were void for duplication or impersonation. The pleadings continued to defence and reply. Liston then took out a summons under

Order XXXIV., rule 2, of the Rules of the Supreme Cowt 1916

(Vict.) for the determination before the hearing of the information

of the following questions of law : - (1) Whether or not the court

has jurisdiction (a) to hear or proceed with the information ; (b) to

order that Liston should be ousted from the office of councillor of the city of Melbourne; (c) to declare that Davies should

now be admitted on taking the prescribed oath of office to member-

ship of the council of the city of Melbourne as a councillor. _ (2) Whether or not the officers or officials having the conduct of

• the election were bound in law to examine the ballot papers pur- porting to record votes with a view to deciding as to any of such : ballot papers whether they were ballot papers of citizens entitled to vote.

The summons was heard by Lowe J., who said that the important words to be emphasized in Order XXXIV., rule 2, were that the 'matter which it was sought to have decided must be a question of Jaw which it would be convenient to have decided before any evidence was given and that in dealing with questions of convenience

A. the court should bear in mind that rules of procedure were m¢

means to enable justice to be done according to the law, Lisroy Honour then said : - '' Bearing in mind that fact, I turn then to the aera particular case with which I have to deal. The proceedings are ay

information at the instance of the relator. There have been

other has an ulterior purpose in the attitude which he takes in the proceedings. On the one side it is said on behalf of the relator th certain ballot papers, which were cast in the election which is ch lenged, have been sealed pursuant to the provisions of Act 27 No. 184 and that those sealed ballot papers are directed by the to be kept unopened for a period of twelve months after the re thereof at the close of the ballot, and at the expiration of thi period of twelve months those ballot papers may be destroyed otherwise disposed of as the council of the city of Melbourne direct. And it is insisted on before me that the respondent attitude is one which indicates that he will interpose what delays the law provides, for the purpose of ensuring that that of twelve months will go by and those ballot papers will bi destroyed before there is a possibility of investigation. other side it is said that the object of the opposition to the application is to force the opening of those ballot papers so th whatever may be the merits, by force of public opinion a pe

as councillor. I apprehend that in dealing with the summons that is now before me I ought to see that no relevant evidence, so far I can prevent it, will be put in jeopardy by any order that I make. In my opinion I am entitled to have regard to the co quences that may follow from an order directing a prior trial these issues of law. If I can see that that order may possibly le 1 to results which may give rise to proceedings which may so ¢ the time that those ballot papers may be destroyed when it bec a question of investigation of their contents, then I think I not order a prior trial of these issues of law. In the © stances, I think it would not be convenient to have the iss law determined before the issues of fact are tried." His

Full Court, which dismissed the appeal: R. v. Liston; Ex parte

~ Davies (1). He applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court from the decision of Gavan Duffy J. and from the decision of the Full Court.

Gorman K.C. and Lewis (with them McCay), for the applicant.

Lewis. The decision of the Full Court was wrong in refusing to direct

the preliminary question of the right of the relator to sue to be deter- mined before the trial. In Victoria a private citizen has no right to act as relator in quo warranto proceedings. Originally the right

• to institute such proceedings was part of the Royal prerogative. 'The Act of 9 Anne c. 25 (sometimes called c. 20), which first gave such a right to a private individual, had statutory recognition in New South Wales. having been brought into force by 9 Geo. IV. ¢. 83, sec. 24, and by 1 Will. IV. c. 21, sec. 3. The Act 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 58, sec. 8, also recognizes the Act of Anne as being in force. The Act 8 Vict. No. 12 assumes, in sec. 29, that the Act of Anne is in force in New South Wales, because it requires an application to be made within six months. The Act of Anne, thus being in force in Victoria, was repealed by the Common Law Procedure Statute 1865 (No. 274), sec. 2 and the First Schedule, the Common Law Procedure Statute providing by sec. 253 a similar provision to the statute of Anne. The right of a private individual to act as relator thenceforth depended on that section, and upon its subsequent tepeal the right no longer existed. The Judicature Act 1875 does not repeal that section. The Swpreme Court Act 1890, sec. 2 and the First Schedule. repealed all the sections, including sec. 253, of the Common Law Procedure Statute 1865 not previously repealed. This tepeal preserved expressly the jurisdiction of the court but had the effect of taking away the right of a private individual to take quo warranto proceedings conferred by the repealed Act. The jurisdiction of the court to grant quo warranto is admitted; the point made is that such jurisdiction can only be exercised at the ; instance of some officer of the Crown. This officer is, in Victoria,

amiinely dismissed the summons. Liston then appealed to the 4. ©. oF A.

the prothonotary, who has now the same powers as the Qu Coroner had in England (Judicature Act 1875; Crimes Act 19 sec. 389). Order LIII., rule 35, of the Rules of the Supreme Co ultra vires, as rules of court cannot deprive His Majesty of | prerogative to prosecute or not to prosecute these proceedings vest that right in a private individual.

Gorman K.C. (by leave). Gavan Duffy J. was wrong in amen the grounds of the order nisi, as there were no facts in affidavits to warrant the amendment. It is not sufficient for th relator to allege that informal votes were cast, unless it is also sho that the effect of them was to alter the result of the election ($ on Informations, Mandamus and Prohibition (1887), p. 164). grounds of the information should not have been amended unk

exercised his discretion correctly in deciding that it was not convenien to have the issue of law tried before the hearing. The exercise such a jurisdiction is very unusual and may involve divorcing on issue from another. It is true that the Act of Anne gave the pri relator a statutory right and that that provision was copied in Common Law Procedure Act. Sec. 2 of the Supreme Court Act preserves the court's common law jurisdiction to give jud; ouster, and Order LIII., r. 35, which allows proceedings in ' nature of quo warranto to be initiated by a private relator is W the rule-making power of the court (R. v. Rogers; Ex parte (2) ). Until 1906 there were no rules corresponding to Order The court has a common law jurisdiction for informations by p

(1) (1833) 5 B. & Ad. 855; 110 E.R. (2) (1878) 4 V.L.R. (L.) 334, ab 1007. 338.

tules are provided to enable that common law jurisdiction to made effective (R. v. Williams (1)). Though there was no tion at common law to give costs, there was jurisdiction to nt ouster (Shortt on Informations, Mandamus and Prohibition ), pp. 112, 204). Formerly, it was necessary to show for whom e false votes were cast, but on the introduction of the secret ballot became impossible because the votes could not be traced, and election could, consequently, not be upset. Now that ballot- are marked they can be examined at a later stage. The le purpose of the ballot is that secrecy is inviolable unless the ot boxes are opened by order of the court. It is not necessary prove for whom the votes were given at this stage, though it be necessary to do so at the trial (Bridge v. Bowen (2)). At s stage it is impossible to prove that the votes were given for the er party (R. v. Harwood (3)). [He also referred to Fx parte knell (4).|

• Lewis, in reply. This is a matter of public importance. The emedy given by the statute of Anne was one given to individuals, even this required the assent of the proper officer on behalf of Crown. It is admitted that at common law there was juris- to grant quo warranto. The point is whether a private on now (since the repeal of the Act of Anne and of sec. 253 of

No. 274) has a tight to prosecute the information, and that in own name.

Ham C.J. The court has had an opportunity of considering Various points raised upon this application during the adjourn- that have taken place since the application was commenced day and is of opinion that special leave to appeal should be

teasons for the decision of the court will be given by my Diaon,

aD 1 Burr, 402; 97 E.R. 371. (3) (1802) 2 East 177; 102 E.R. 336, ) (1916) 21 C.L.R. 582. (4) (1936) 56 C.L.R, 221.

s preserved in sec. 15 of the Supreme Court Act 1928, and H.C. or A.

Drxon J. The application is for special leave to appeal fr two orders of the Supreme Court. One is an order absolute m by Gavan Duffy J. allowing the filing of an information in the nai m of quo warranto. The other is an order of the Full Court aff an order of Lowe J. refusing an application for a special case to some questions of law which the defendant says ought to be dete mined before the trial of the information.

An application was made to this court for special leave to appea from the first order shortly after it was pronounced, when fh proceedings had reached the stage at which the information ha been exhibited but had not yet been pleaded to. The court, by majority, refused the application for special leave, but did so, I understand it, not because it was of the opinion that any of questions of law it was sought to argue should be decided ag the defendant, but because in all the circumstances it con that the time was inopportune for raising them and obta decision of the court upon them, if indeed they could be said to arisen. The proceedings have now got to the stage when plead are closed, the matter is ready for trial and is in a list for almost immediately.

The first contention upon which the application of the defe is based is that the proceedings do not lie at all at the instan the relator. Notwithstanding the refusal of special leave on previous application, if it appeared probable that on an appeal the defendant this court would arrive at a decision to the effect the relator had no locus standi, and that the proceedings, thi ought not to have been taken and do not lie, we should at stage have been disposed to intervene and grant special leave order that that question should be raised. But we are not of th opinion.

The defendant also seeks to raise another question or quest which go to the correctness in substance of the order allow filing of the information of quo warranto. Those questions & on a somewhat different footing. When an order absolute been made and an information exhibited, the proceedings upot information result in a trial at which the defendant is free to his whole case. Indeed it is the informant or relator upon who

cast the burden of establishing the case against the defendant. If H.C. oF A.

those questions stood alone, speaking for myself, I should have found the previous refusal of special leave an almost insuperable obstacle to granting leave at this stage of the proceedings. But the court is of opinion that for reasons which go rather to the merits of the question, reasons which I shall afterwards state, that question also should not be entertained.

The reasons advanced on behalf of the defendant for saying that the proceedings do not lie at the instance of the relator depend upon the somewhat curious course which has been taken in the statute law of Victoria. Owing to the repeal by the legislature of that State of the statute, 9 Anne c. 25, called c. 20 in Ruffhead's edition of the statutes, it is said that in Victoria there can be no application of what is commonly supposed to be the general law enabling a private person who is interested to apply to a superior court possessing the jurisdiction of the courts at Westminster for an information in the nature of quo warranto inquiring into the title to a public office asserted by the person in fact occupying it.

We think that the argument places too much reliance upon the statute 9 Anne c. 25 as the source of the jurisdiction of the courts to entertain such a proceeding, and that notwithstanding its repeal in Victoria the jurisdiction to allow an information of quo warranto on the relation of a private prosecutor without the intervention of the Attorney-General exists.

In dealing with the argument, it is, I think, convenient first to state the manner in which the common law affecting the remedy developed, and then the position which had been reached when the statutory provisions were transcribed in Victorian legislation and afterwards repealed.

It is a fact that informations in the nature of quo warranto were originally criminal. In their beginnings they were not to be differ- entiated from other forms of criminal proceedings by information. The origin of criminal informations and their growth are discussed in vol. 1. of Sir James FitzJames Stephen's History of the Criminal Law (1883), pp. 294-297, where two different accounts of their history are given. The learned author goes on to say (at p. 296) : - "Whatever may have been its origin, the power to file criminal

• informations in the Court of King's Bench was used, not mere

the Attorney and Solicitor General in cases of public import

persons were able to prosecute criminally any person who offended them by any act which could be treated as a misdemeat without the sanction of a grand jury. This led to abuses in the

of frivolous malicious prosecutions, in which the defendants re ve

information in the King's Bench, but a private informer or pro might in what might be described as the lesser misdem

Blackstone's Commentaries, 5th ed. (1773), vol. 4, ¢. 23, s p. 308, contain an account of the two classes of information : - * T informations, that are exhibited in the name of the King

the Attorney-General; secondly, those in which the King i nominal prosecutor, yet it is at the relation of some private pet or common informer, and they are filed by the King's coroner attorney in the Court. of King's Bench, usually called the Ma of the Crown Office, who is for this purpose the standing office the public. The objects of the King's own prosecution, ex officio by his own Attorney-General, are properly such eno1 misdemeanours as peculiarly tend to disturb or endanger his govt ment, or to molest or affront him in the regular discharge 0 royal functions. For offences so high and dangerous, in the pu ment or prevention of which a moment's delay would be faté law has given to the Crown the power of an immediate prosect without waiting for any previous application to any other trib which power thus necessary not only to the ease and sa

even to the very existence of the executive magistrate, was originally 4. ©. oF A.

reserved in the great plan of the English constitution, wherein provision is wisely made for the due preservation of all its parts. The objects of the other species of informations filed by the Master of the Crown Office, upon the complaint or relation of a private subject, are, any gross and notorious misdemeanours, riots, batteries, libels, and other immoralities of an atrocious kind, not peculiarly tending to disturb the government (for those are left to the care of the Attorney-General), but which, on account of their magnitude or pernicious example, deserve the most public animadversion."

There was at common law an original writ issuing out of Chancery for the Crown called a writ of quo warranto. It lay against anyone claiming or usurping any office, franchise or liberty, and its purpose was to inquire into the authority upon which the claim rested and to determine the right to the office, franchise or liberty. An information was devised to take its place and the writ of quo warranto fell into disuse. The information was " properly a criminal method of prosecution, as well to punish the usurper by a fine for the usurpa- tion of the franchise, as to oust him, or seize it for the Crown: but hath long been applied to the mere purposes of trying the civil right seizing the franchise, or ousting the wrongful possessor ; the fine being nominal only " (Blackstone, Commentaries, 5th ed. (1773), vol. 3, c. 17, sec. 5, p. 263).

In its development into a remedy for the determination of a civil right, the originally criminal information of quo warranto took with it the characteristic to which I have referred, namely, that not only might it be exhibited ex officio by the Attorney-General, but it might be obtained by a private individual from the Master of the Crown Office and without the authority of any judicial order. The fact that, before the enactment of any provision controlling the grant of information, an information of quo warranto was of this kind is made clear by the decisions given before 9 Anne c. 25. The reported decisions do not go far back before that date. The first is after the passing of 4 & 5 Will. & Mary c. 18. In 1698, in R. v. Mayor and Aldermen of Hertford (1), an information of quo warranto was granted against the mayor and aldermen to show by what

(1) (1698) 1 Salk. 374 and 376; 1 Ld. Raym. 426; 91 E.R. 325, 328, 1183.

authority they admitted persons to be freemen of the corporation who did not inhabit in the borough. It was granted upon motion made on behalf of the freemen. The statute 4 & 5 Will. & Mary c. 18, as it was interpreted, required that without the leave of the court no information should be exhibited by the clerk of the Crown for trespasses, batteries and other misdemeanours, and that he should take a recognizance from the person procuring the information to be exhibited. The freemen had not given a recognizance and a motion was made to set aside the process. The report says : - " And this being to try a right, the question was, whether it was within the said statute, viz. trespasses, batteries, and other misde- meanours, which are frivolous wrangling matters of an inferior nature ? But the court said, that this usurpation here pretended was a misdemeanour, and the information might be as vexatious in this case, as in trespass or battery : that this last is a remedial law to prevent vexation, and must be construed accordingly ; therefore the process was ordered to be set aside, but the information stood " (1). Although that appears to be the earliest case reported making clear the relation of informations of quo warranto to proceedings by criminal information, several cases of 1698 and 1699 appear among the precedents which are stated in R. v. Breton (2) to have been turned up in a search made under the direction of the Court of King's Bench.

The object of the statute 4 & 5 Will. & Mary c. 18, was to suppress the abuse of proceedings by information. To this end the leave of the court was required and recognizances were exacted. Two things are shown by the cases to which I have referred. The first is that, although the statute is expressed in general terms referring to misdemeanours, it extends to informations of quo warranto. The second is that under it " the clerk of the Crown can in no case file an information without express leave" (Lancred, Quo Warranto (1830), p. 9). There are, so far as I have been able to discover, no further reported decisions before the passing of the statute of 9 Anne c. 25. That statute related to corporations and corporators and their officers. It gave the Courts of Queen's Bench and the Courts of Counties Palatine express

(1) (1698) 1 Salk, 376; 91 E.R. 328. (2) (1768) 4 Burr, 2260; 98 E.R. 179.

more speedy where offices of that character were usurped. as it relates to quo warranto, its important words are: " It and may be lawful to and for the proper officer in each of the respective courts, with the leave of the said courts respectively, exhibit one or more information or informations in the nature of 1 quo warranto, at the relation of any person or persons desiring ) prosecute the same, and who shall be mentioned in such informa- n or informations to be the relator or relators against such person persons, so usurping" etc. "and to proceed therein in such as is usual in cases of information in the nature of a quo nto " (sec. 4).

ter this statute a definite practice grew up governing applica- to the Court of King's Bench in the case of corporations for to exhibit informations of quo warranto. The practice s, as far as I can ascertain, to have moulded the course of ocedure at common law in cases which did not relate to corpora- In the case of R. v. Howell (1) the distinction between the ral application of 4 & 5 Will. & Mary c. 18, and the more limited m of 9 Anne c. 25 is shown, and the same view as had been inthe case of R. v. The Mayor and Aldermen of Hertford 2) as to the criminal origin of quo warranto is repeated. Lord Hardwicke as Chief Justice of the King's Bench decided that a relator was liable for the costs provided for by 4 & 5 Will. & Mary c. 18,

mation at all can be filed by the Clerk of the Crown without

of the court ; but the true meaning of the Act, and warranted 'Practice, is, that he should file no information without leave, issue process thereupon without recognizance. As to these not being for misdemeanours, it is now too late to that objection, since the practice has been always otherwise. he courts, indeed, have themselves made this distinction, to grant formations for public usurpations, but if it is only of a private e not concerning public government, as a fair, &c., the court

(1) (1736) Cas, temp. Hardwicke (2) (1698) 1 Salk. 374 and 376; 1 Ld. ' 95 E.R. 159. Raym, 426 ; 91 E.R. 325, 328, 1183.

to grant informations of quo warranto and it also made the H- ©. or A.

has sometimes refused them, and directed an application Attorney-General. You cannot in this case have a rule for costs shall be taxed in general, for you can have no more th in penalty the recognizance extends to; but if the cause had gon trial, you might have had your whole costs, because upon the stat , of 9 Anne judgment would be given for costs" (1). This distine became firmly established (See R. v. Morgan (2) ). . My brother Rich has referred me to the provisions of see. 6

Governor to exhibit informations in the colony of New South Ws or Van Dieman's Land. A remarkable modern illustration of principle is afforded by the decision upon the provision. See. 9 Geo. IV. c. 83 provides "that it shall and may be lay any person or persons, by leave of the Supreme Courts" of tho colonies " respectively first had and obtained, to exhibit a cri information against any other person or persons in the name of said Attorney-General, or of such other officer as aforesaid, crime or misdemeanour not punishable by death, by him or he them committed, or alleged to have been committed . . . any information so exhibited as aforesaid by leave of the c shall be heard, tried, and determined in such and the same man in every respect as any other informations are hereinbefore re to be heard, tried, and determined." m

It was decided in the case of R. v. North (3) that this p governed proceedings in the nature of quo warranto. An aj for quo warranto had been granted questioning the title of defendant to the office of alderman, and when he was ousted ; contended that no costs were recoverable. Wise J. said question for my decision was, whether any costs were reco) in this colony upon a judgment of quo warranto. The qui in my opinion, entirely on whether the 9th Anne c. 20, sec. 5, not applicable to a proceeding of this kind. 1 am of opinion tl is not. The present proceeding is, in point of law, an in

(1) (1736) Cas. temp. Hardwicke, at (2) (1736) 2 Stra. 1042 x pp. 248, 249; 95 ER., at p.159. (3) (1865) 4 8. CR. (NSW,)U

name of the Attorney-General, under the provisions of 9 Georg c. 83, sections 5 and 6, and rule 19 of the 29th April, 1856, hich sections apply alike to all crimes, whether felonies or misde- . No distinction is made between one kind of felony or our and another ; and it seems to me, therefore, that the mule as to costs must be alike in all - that is to say, the defendant pays no costs in any case. It has long been well settled that no costs can be obtained in a quo warranto, except by force of 9 Anne 20, or some other statute; and that statute does not apply, in opinion, to any case in which the Attorney-General is the officer n whose name and by whose authority the information is presented ""

6 of 9 Geo. IV. c. 83 has gone in Victoria. It is really replaced sec. 389 of the Crimes Act 1928 (Vict.), but the case shows the ice of the view that quo warranto proceedings were criminal \ their nature as well as in their origin. That view led to the passing England of sec. 15 of the Judicature Act 1884 making quo warranto 1 civil proceeding, a provision which is to be found here in sec. 31 'of the Supreme Court Act 1928 (Vict.).

In the case of R. v. Williams (2) which was cited this morning, he view that an information of quo warranto may be obtained independently of 9 Anne c. 25 was expressed in a form which appears make the point particularly clear. A proceeding was taken hich actually fell outside the statute. After judgment had been upon the information against the defendant awarding costs to the relator as under the statute, error was brought. Although information had been obtained and exhibited on the footing of the statute and costs awarded accordingly, the court of error never- ss treated the case as one in which the information and judgment, cept as to costs, could be supported at common law. The mention the relator was treated as surplusage and the judgment as to only reversed.

But unfortunately in 1765 Lord Mansfield made the error of ing that the locus standi of a private individual applying for uo warranto was dependent on the statute of 9 Anne c. 25, and he

1. (1865) 4 S.C.R. (N.S.W.) (L.), at (2) (1757) 1 Burr, 402; 97 E.R. 371.

ed. (1859), p. 1171) that he so stated and this view is exp Wilmot J. in the report. In R. v. Marsden (2) Lord Mai reported to have said : - '* But no case or even dictum appea

any instance, where the coroner and attorney did file these infi tions before the Act of 4, 5 W. & M.: nor by the records of the office, is there any sort of proof of it, therefore I should desire th records to be searched, if it were necessary to form an opinion oj that point. But that is not, at present, necessary." Wi expressed a like opinion (3). But after a discussion " the judg all declared expressly, that they were far from giving any op one way or another upon the first point ; but meant to let it rema open to any future light that might be procured upon the subje by cases or precedents or otherwise, and particularly by seare : after what the Master of the Crown Office had done in these cas before the two Acts of Parliament of 4, 5 W. & M. and 9 Anne"

In the case to which I have already referred of R. v. Breton (5) the records were searched, and, although what is stated in the rf (6) as to their effect does not expressly refer to the fact that was a relator, that seems clearly to have been so.

In R. v. Highmore (7) Lord Tenterden referred to the num precedents before the statute of 9 Anne. Nevertheless, Mansfield's mistake led to a general opinion being formed or rep ate to the effect that the origin of the relator's locus standi was ii : statute. In a book, published in 1830, by H. W. Tancred entiti A Treatise on Informations in the nature of Quo Warranto, there at pp. 14, 15 and 16, a discussion in which the true positi stated. Further, as Mr. Tancred says, it appears from the de in R. v. Gregory (8) that Lord Mansfield himself departed from h opinion and took the true view. Mr. Tancred adds, at p. 18

(1) (1765) 3 Burr. 1615; 97 E.R. (5) (1768) 4 Burr. 2260; 98 EAR 1010. (6) (1768) 4 Burr. at pp.

(2) (1765) 3 Burr. 1812, at p. 1816; 2261; 98 ELR., at p. 179. 97 E.R. 1113, at p. 1115. (7) (1822) 5 B. & Ald. 771, at

(3) (1765) 3 Burr., at p. 1817; 97 772, 773; 106 E.R. 1373, ER. 1116. 1374.

(4) (1765) 3 Burr. at p. 1821; 97 (8) (1772) 4 T.R. 240n,; 100 ER., at p. 1118. 995.

"The records of the Crown Office leave no room to doubt, that H.C. or A.

informations were filed by the coroner anterior to that statute, even in cases directly within its provisions (Such as mayor, bailiff, capital burgess: the records are of the 5th Anne. 2 Kyd. on Cor. 416.

Ex informatione, Mr. Dealtry), which clearly shows, that this latter

statute did not first introduce these informations, but only made

some regulations with respect to the prosecution of them."

Tn 1845 the House of Lords had before them an appeal in a _quo warranto which led them to consult the judges (R. v. Darley {1)). On that occasion the advice of the judges was given to the House of Lords by Tindal C.J., who took the opportunity of stating that the jurisdiction on informations of quo warranto was indepen-

dent of the statute of 9 Anne c. 25, or at any rate was anterior to it.

Tindal C.J. said : - * It is only in more modern times that informa-

tions have been exhibited by the King's coroner and attorney.

'The first reported case is that of The King v. Mayor of Hertford

(2), in 10 W. III. And it is a mistake to suppose that these

informations were founded on the statute of 9 Anne, The King v.

• Gregory (3) and The King v. Williams (4) where the right to file _ an information at common law, by the coroner and attorney, against

a person for holding a criminal court of record, was recognized. _ After the statute of 4 and 5 W. & M. which restrained the

• filing of informations by the coroner and attorney, the sanction

of the court was required, and after that statute and the 9 Anne,

it exercised a discretion to grant or refuse them to private prosecutors, "according to the nature of the case " (5). _ Finally, in the modern case of R. v. Speyer and Cassel (6) Lord _ Rading C.5. stated the same or substantially the same conclusion. The

• question in that case was whether a member of the Privy Council was _ liable to an information of quo warranto if he lost his qualification for
• that office ; for an office it was held to be. After shortly stating fe history of the remedy up to the statute of 9 Anne c. 25, Lord [aM C.J. proceeds : - " Since that time there has been a tendency

(1) (1846) 12 Cl. & Fin. 520, at p. (8) 0772) 4 TR. 40 n.; 100 ER. 537; 8 E.R. 1513, at p. 1520.

(2) (1698)1 Salis. 374 and 376; 11a. (4) Gen) 1 Burr, 402; 97 E.R. 371. Raym, 426; 91 E.R. 325, 328, (5) (1846) 12 Cl. & Fin., at pp. 537, 1183, 538; SELR., at p. 1520,

grant or refuse informations to private prosecutors accordi the facts and circumstances of the case, and hence it is

becomes so difficult to reconcile many of the decisions, as pointed out by Lord Brougham in Darley v. The Queen, (I). that case the judges were summoned to the House of Lords to their opinion. The House of Lords adopted the opinion deli

point when considering the law relating to quo warranto, and t effect of the earlier cases has been much qualified ; Reg. v. Han (2). Many of the authorities cited to us in the course of tl argument were dealt with in that case and reviewed by Tindal

He expressed his conclusion in the oft-quoted words (3) : - the consideration of all the cases and dicta on this subject, the appears to be, that this proceeding by information in the nat quo warranto will lie for usurping any office, whether created by charter alone, or by the Crown, with the consent of Parl provided the office be of a public nature, and a substantive o not merely the function or employment of a deputy or servant at the will and pleasure of others.' The test to be applied is wheth there has been usurpation of an office of a public nature and a office substantive in character, that is, an office independent in title. This decision is an authority against the proposition argu by the Attorney-General. It establishes that, whereas former a quo warranto was held to lie only where there was an usurpat of a prerogative of the Crown or of a right of franchise, a procee by information in the nature of quo warranto has long since b extended beyond that limit and is a remedy available to privat persons within the limits stated by Tindal C.J. and subject al to the discretion of the court to refuse or grant it" (4).

In Victoria 9 Anne c. 25 was repealed and transcribed in t Common Law Procedure Statute 1865, secs. 2, 253, 254. When | h Judicature Act 1883 was passed it left those provisions of the Comm Law Procedure Statute in force. The Rules of Court 1884 were ma

(1) (1846) 12 Cl. & Fin., at p. 537; (3) (1846) 12 Cl. & Fin, at p. 5 8 ELR., at p. 1519. 8 ELR., at p. 1521. ; (2) (1865) 6 B. & 8. 923, at p. 931; (4) (1916) 1 KB, at p- 609.

quo warranto in rule 2 of Order LXVIII., and made applicable tain provisions of the Judicature rules, but no Crown Office rules were made.

In the consolidation of statutes of 1890, made under the super- vision of Mr. Justice Higinbotham, the provisions of 9 Anne c. 25, 4, were treated as no longer of importance. They were repealed 'the Supreme Court Act 1890, sec. 2. That section included a r0 that nothing therein should be construed to take away, lessen r impair any statutory or other jurisdiction, power or authority of court or the judges thereof. Sec. 18 repeated the provision comes from 9 Geo. IV. c. 83, sec. 3, conferring upon the Supreme the jurisdiction of the common-law courts at Westminster.

e Statute was to make it no longer possible for the Supreme of Victoria to give leave to a relator to exhibit an information 1 the nature of quo warranto, or, alternatively, no longer possible the case of corporations which were covered by 9 Anne c. 25, 4.

The matter may be looked at as one of jurisdiction, or it may be looked at as one of right. The jurisdiction of the Court of King's Bench to entertain informations in the name of the King granted at the instance of a private prosecutor by the Master of the Crown

• Office appears clearly to have existed at common law. The control by the court of the Master of the Crown Office as King's Attorney and Coroner in reference to granting informations at the instance private prosecutor may rest on 4 & 5 Will. & Mary ec. 18, but statute is still in force (See Division 4 of Part Il. of the ial Acts Application Act 1922). But the jurisdiction over a ling by quo warranto obtained by a private individual d at common law and is preserved. The jurisdiction to give e to issue the process also remains.

xed at from the point of view of right, the matter may tend s to get into some confusion. The position of relator or r in the case of prerogative writs and of informations is The relator or prosecutor has a locus standi to obtain

year following the passing of the Judicature Act. They referred H.C. or A-

relief, but the relief or remedy runs in the name of the Crown. form it is a proceeding by the Crown taken in the public int

The relator or prosecutor cannot be said to have the ordinary privat

or for the vindication of his own personal rights. The remedy in the interests of the public and the relator is in the position person who informs the court of an occasion why the public remed should go.

A further argument, or, perhaps another aspect of the s argument. is relied on in support of the defendant's application f special leave to appeal. The contention is that, although as a of the provisions of sec. 18 of the Supreme Court Act 1890, whi now sec. 15 of the Supreme Court Act 1928, it may be possibl Victoria for the Supreme Court to entertain an information o quo warranto, nevertheless it is not for the court to make judicial order at the instance of a relator for its issue. If t private individual obtains the information from the proper 0 t of the Crown, the prothonotary, as in whose name the duties of Master of the Crown Office should be done, then the court is to it. But, since the repeal of 9 Anne c. 25, it is said, there is no in the relator to obtain an order of the court for leave to exhibit th information ; that his right having been destroyed, the ren ought not to be allowed to him judicially. I do not think expresses the true position. The true position is that the rela locus standi depends upon procedure, and that when the statute 0 9 Anne ¢. 25 or its transcribed provisions were repealed, the que

of 1906, upon which the relator relies, were passed and a proce was prescribed enabling a private individual who was interested proceed very much as he formerly might have done. It is unnee sary to consider whether under sec. 389 of the Crimes Act 1928 # information should still run in the name of the prothono Order LITI., rule 35, says that it need not, and, as it is now a el proceeding. it may be a matter falling within the rule-ma

_ The statute of 9 Anne c. 25, sec. 4, itself refers to the Master of H- C. or A.

the Crown Office as the proper officer of the court.

The course of decision in reference to the descriptions of offices for which an information of quo warranto would lie has not been uniform. As the foundation of the remedy is the encroachment upon the Royal prerogative involved in a usurpation of office or franchise, it appears at one time to have been thought that, apart from cases falling within 9 Anne ec. 25, sec. 4, an information would not lie to determine the right to occupy a statutory office. For unless the office emanated from the Crown and was held directly or indirectly in consequence of the exercise of a prerogative power, it might be considered that the occasion of the remedy was lacking.

_ Upon this view, the statute of 9 Anne c. 25 might be regarded as an extension of jurisdiction, because not all the offices which it included were necessarily derived under charter or otherwise from the Crown. But afterwards a different view was taken and it was decided that it was enough that the office emanated from the Crown in its legislative capacity. In Darley v. The Queen (1) Tindal C.J. says : - But supposing that this proceeding is applicable only where rights of the Crown, as in the instances of offices derived from the Crown, are concerned, it is not confined to such as are created by charter, or which may be presumed to have been originally so created. It has been held to apply to offices constituted by Parlia-

"ment; nor can any good reason be assigned why it should lie, where

_ the Crown alone creates the office by its prerogative, and not lie

_ where it creates it with the advice and consent of the Lords and

Commons. Accordingly an information was held to lie for a corporate

• office created, not by charter, but by Act of Parliament (Lhe King

_Y. Duke of Bedford (2)); so for the office of commissioners for "paving under a local Act (The King v. Badcock (3) ); and for the

office of trustees of a harbour (Lhe King v. Nicholson (4) ), though constituted by a private act, their duties being public; and the court said, that informations have been constantly granted where any new jurisdiction or public trust is exercised without authority,

(1) (1846) 12 Cl. & Fin., at p. 539; (3) (1782) 6 East, at p. 359; 102 E.R. SELR., at p. 1521. at p. 1324. (2) (1729) 1 Barn, K.B. 242; 94 (4) (1714) 1 Stra. 299; 93 E.R. 533.

and the argument that these informations were granted only the Crown alone could have granted the franchise, was expre overruled." And again: " After consideration of all the cases dicta on this subject, the result appears to be, that this proceedi by information in the nature of quo warranto will lie for usurpi any office, whether created by charter alone, or by the Crown, wi the consent of Parliament, provided the office be of a public nat and a substantive office, not merely the function of employm a deputy or servant held at the will and pleasure of others with respect to such employment, the court certainly will interfere, and the information will not properly lie" (1). a From the citations contained in the opinion of the judges int case, in the arguments of R. v. Ramsden (2), R. v. Hanley R. v. Beedle (4) and R. v. Guardians of St. Martin's (5), and fron the collection of cases in Halsbury, 2nd ed., vol. 9, p. 805, n a great many examples may be obtained of cases falling altog outside 9 Anne c. 25, sec. 4, where a relator's information has bet held to lie. The fact is that there grew up a general juri to grant relief at the instance of a relator in proceedings fi upon the analogy of the statute, based upon the common la restricted by 4 & 5 Will. & Mary c. 18. In Victoria that jurisdiction appears to be properly exerci in pursuance of Order LIII. of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The question I have discussed is, no doubt, deserving of thot investigation and the circumstances of this case have made it un able that we should take the time necessary for as complet examination of the authorities as we should like. But the defer in applying for special leave has complained that he has not bee able to secure from the courts any decision on this his most impo and fundamental objection to the information, and certainly he made several attempts to raise it as a preliminary question. Ty circumstances we think it right to express our opinion upon ita to do so at once, in view of the fact that the trial of the informat

is now pending. (1) (1846) 12 CL & Fin, at pp. 541, (3) (1880) 8 A. & B.A6n5 mM 542; 8 E.R, at pp. 1521, 1522, f (2) (1835) 3 A. & E. 456; 11 E.R. (4) (ssh A.& E.467; ME

te a different nature. The defendant contends that the order i should not have been made absolute, because at that time it neither properly alleged and certainly not proved that any of the votes said to have been cast by persons impersonating electors the roll were cast in favour of the defendant. Therefore, it s said, it was not shown that any votes should be deducted from defendant's total, and, indeed, it was not known from the total of which of the candidates, who were more than two in number, the us votes should be deducted. The argument was primarily upon the decision of this court in Bridge v. Bowen (1), a decision a New South Wales statute.

d allowing an information to be filed, is one which I do not think d be examined at this stage of the proceedings. When the ition was filed and pleaded to, an issue arose for trial or The issue involves the question whether the defendant a majority of lawful votes. When this court decided that ought not to grant special leave to appeal from the order absolute, that appears to me to imply that, until in the proceedings upon the 'information the Supreme Court had determined the question, this court should not be called upon to intervene. The point which it is

ught to make is that, unless and until proof is adduced that the mators voted in favour of the defendant in sufficient numbers

lity of his election. The point may never arise upon the trial { the information. But the distinction or possible distinction bween such a case as this and that of Bridge v. Bowen (1) appears from a passage in the judgment of Isaacs J., as he then was (2). It 8 as follows : - "' In England it is, and always has been, the universal ein cases of personation to allege and prove that the personator for the opposite party, and thereupon the vote is deducted. e the Ballot Act in England, when the voting was open, the proof was easy, because the destination of the vote was always <nown, and the vote was deducted from the person who got it

(1) (1916) 21 C.L.R. 582. (2) (1916) 21 C.L.R., at pp. 621, 622.

other matter upon which the application is grounded is of H- ©. or A.

H.C. or A. (Southampton Case (1) ). The same practice has been followed sin

the Ballot Act 1872 which sanctions it (Gloucester Case (2) ; Case (3) ). In Queensland, both in parliamentary and muniei elections, intruded votes are, notwithstanding the ballot examined and struck off the total of the person who received then (Queensland Parliament Papers 1912, vol. 1., pp. 40, 42, and R. v. Martin (4) ). There is nothing, therefore, inherently contrar to the Ballot Act in looking to see for whom a personated vote: other intruding vote was given. The secrecy of the ballot is intend to protect those who have a right to vote, not those who il

invade the polling booth, and tend to destroy the elective priv of the lawful voters. This principle is stated with great clea in the Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure (American) vol. XV. pp. 424, 430, 431, with cases cited. Some legislatures have the made provision for voting in such a way that until the nec arises for eliminating invaders' votes, absolute secrecy shall be

which those votes can be ejected. So in England and Queens Other legislatures appear to consider on the whole that no si means are absolutely necessary, or that their adoption may be to the local bodies concerned. Secrecy is then inviolable whate personation takes place."

In the present case, sec. 22 of Act No. 178 provides for the pres tion of votes. It appears to contemplate their production examination judicially. Further, in sec. 152 of the Local Gove Act 1928, which applies to Melbourne and Geelong, there are allusi to the position of the returning officer, who has the voting papers. It supposes that he is legally bound to answer questions in some inquiry. We think that the application of the views given effec to in Bridge v. Bowen (5) is at least questionable. The yotes ate there and the question as to how they are to be dealt with on tht trial of the information is a matter which can only properly arise ' the trial. We do not think it desirable to give in advance an opin upon the question, which has not been argued, whether at the tt

(1) C. & K. 102. (3) (1880) 3 O°M, & H. 57, at p. 59. (2) (1873) 2 O'M. & H. 59, at p. 64. (4) (1907) Q.S.R. 166. (5) (1916) 21 C.L.R. 582.

the matter should be dealt with upon subpcena duces tecum or by H- ©. oF A.

Lowe J. was invited to order that a special case should be stated raising the question whether the proceeding was maintainable and another question or questions. He exercised his discretion and refused to do so. So far as this is an application for special leave to appeal so as to attack that particular order, it would be difficult to induce this court to undertake the task of reviewing the learned judge's exercise of discretion. The applicant appealed from the order of Lowe J. to the Full Court and the Full Court again refused to overrule his discretion. We have been asked as a third court to enter into the question of how a discretion in a procedural matter should be exercised.

'The second point which I have dealt with is of an entirely different character from the first; it does not go to the question whether the proceedings lie at all, but to the manner in which they ought to be decided in substance.

Solicitors for the applicant, Mahoney, O'Brien & Harty. Solicitors for the respondent, Bullen & Burt.