Pearce v Jones [1917] HCA 50

High Court of Australia|1917-07-01|Before: Gavan Duffy JJ, Barton J, Isaacs J, Gavan Durry J

DEFENDANT, AND JONES ON ee INFORMANT, '

DEFENDANT, AND JONES 5 5 E s . é . . Respro resolution to the meeting did an illegal act. Even if the affirm- of the resolution was an illegal act, I do not think that the chair- was in the relevant sense a party to making it. I do not think labour this point. Beyond what I have stated, no evidence

furthered in any way the resolution so as to be considered as adopted it. If he was a party to it in any sense, he was not it sense.

e case of Smith is different. He seconded the resolution. In judgment, and I think I have the concurrence of my brothers, oposition affirmed in a resolution is equally affirmed by the n who moves the resolution and the person who seconds it. a statement is absolutely repeated in words or whether ent with it is merely expressed by word of mouth is in common and, I think, in law, absolutely the same thing. To have by seconding, a resolution that the Political Labour cil should call upon all Labour Members of Parliament to refuse 'ist in recruiting, is to become a party to it in the sense of z verbally his approval of it. He makes the statement his _ The question then is whether that is a statement likely to ee recruiting. I think it is, and on the ground that, this ga meeting of delegates of the Labour Party, before whom mably the question came within some rule which made it in the expression of the opinion that the Political Labour Council call upon all Labour Members of Parliament to refuse to assist uiting was intended to influence someone. It was intended the Political Labour Council, and through them Members nt. If they or some of them were not assisting or were osed to assist in recruiting, the resolution would be entirely . We cannot consider the resolution as being anything else 'statement whose meaning was that if there were persons who g or were disposed to assist recruiting they must abandon

H.C. or A. that attitude, and must refuse to assist or to further assist en ing. That being the purport of the resolution, it seems to ee arguable that the statement was not likely to prejudice rec1 sua That is the short ground upon which I decide. I think, the Pad - that Pearce is not shown to have made this statement, and Smith has been shown to have done so.

The remaining question is as to the reception of evidence. what has been brought before us I do not think that the Magistrate relied upon the evidence objected to in coming

conclusion, and, therefore, that evidence does not affect the c

as they come before us, so as to invalidate a conviction found the evidence, which evidence was sufficient.

I am of opinion that the appeal of Pearce succeeds, and tl Smith fails.

Isaacs J. 1 agree. Gavan Durry J. I agree. Smith's appeal dismissed with costs.

Pearce's appeal allowed. Order appealed fi discharged with costs, £4 4s. Respond pay costs of appeal.

Solicitors for the appellants, Loughrey & Douglas. Solicitor for the respondent, Gordon H. Castie, Crown Solicito { the Commonwealth.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (11 paragraphs)