ON THIS DAY in 1933, US Congress passed the Beer and Wine Revenue Act 1933 which relaxed prohibition in the United States.
Peter O’Grady
1933 | Beer and Wine Revenue Act 1933
Peter O’Grady
Peter O’Grady
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100
ON 26 MAY 1932, the House of Lords delivered Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562; [1932] UKHL 100 (26 May 1932).
ww.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.html
Mrs Donoghue suffered shock and severe gastro enteritis after consuming a bottle of ginger beer which contained the decomposed remains of a snail. The bottle had been purchased by her friend. She sought damages from the manufacturer without having a contractual relationship with them.
Mrs Donoghue was awarded damages as the court ruled that the manufacturer owed her a duty to take reasonable care and that duty existed independently of the contract.
The case established the tort of negligence.
Per Lord Atkin:
“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.”
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK)
ON 11 DECEMBER 1931, the Parliament of the United Kingdom enacted the Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/22-23/4/introduction
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/poteoa1997455
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Kilminster v Sun Newspapers Limited [1931] HCA 37
Kilminster v Sun Newspapers Limited [1931] HCA 37; (1931) 46 CLR 284 (23 November 1931).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/46clr284.html
1300 00 2088
Sydney & North Sydney Lime Burners Ltd v Phillips [1931] 31 SR (NSW) 505
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Attorney-General (NSW) v Trethowan [1931] HCA 3
ON 16 MARCH 1931 the High Court of Australia delivered Attorney-General (NSW) v Trethowan [1931] HCA 3; (1931) 44 CLR 394 ( 16 March 1931).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1931/3.htm
In 1929, the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) was amended with the enactment of s7A, which contained a manner and form provision that a bill for the abolition of the NSW upper house (Legislative Council) could not be presented to the Governor for Royal Assent unless the bill was passed by both houses of the state parliament and then approved by a popular referendum.
In 1931, both houses passed a bill for the abolition of s7A and a bill for the abolition of the Legislative Council. The bill for the abolition of the Legislative Council was not approved by popular referendum.
Before the bills could be presented to the Governor for Royal Assent, Trethowan and another councillor obtained a decree from the NSW Supreme Court which in effect restrained the Government from presenting the bills to the Governor. The persons restrained (the defendants) included the NSW Attorney-General, the President of the Legislative Council, the Premier and the other Ministers of the Crown for NSW.
The High Court of Australia dismissed an appeal by the defendants, upholding the validity and binding effect of s7A.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Municipal Council of Mosman v Spain & Ors [1929] NSWStRp 45
ON 8 AUGUST 1929, the Supreme Court of NSW delivered Municipal Council of Mosman v Spain & Ors [1929] NSWStRp 45; (1929) 29 SR (NSW) 492 (8 August 1929).
The court held that the land at Taronga Zoo was exempt from rates.
The court also held that the failure of a person to appeal a rates decision does not render him or her liable to pay the rates over land which is wrongly rated.
1300 00 2088
Section 10 of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
ON 12 MARCH 1929, section 10 of the NSW Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (formerly known as section 556A of the Crimes Act 1900) was added to the Crimes Act 1900 through the passage of the Crimes (Amendment) Act 1929 No 2.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/ca1929n2189
As at 12 March 2015, s10 provides:
Dismissal of charges and conditional discharge of offender
10 Dismissal of charges and conditional discharge of offender
(1) Without proceeding to conviction, a court that finds a person guilty of an offence may make any one of the following orders:
(a) an order directing that the relevant charge be dismissed,
(b) an order discharging the person on condition that the person enter into a good behaviour bond for a term not exceeding 2 years,
(c) an order discharging the person on condition that the person enter into an agreement to participate in an intervention program and to comply with any intervention plan arising out of the program.
(2) An order referred to in subsection (1) (b) may be made if the court is satisfied:
(a) that it is inexpedient to inflict any punishment (other than nominal punishment) on the person, or
(b) that it is expedient to release the person on a good behaviour bond.
(2A) An order referred to in subsection (1) (c) may be made if the court is satisfied that it would reduce the likelihood of the person committing further offences by promoting the treatment or rehabilitation of the person.
(2B) Subsection (1) (c) is subject to Part 8C.
(3) In deciding whether to make an order referred to in subsection (1), the court is to have regard to the following factors:
(a) the person’s character, antecedents, age, health and mental condition,
(b) the trivial nature of the offence,
(c) the extenuating circumstances in which the offence was committed,
(d) any other matter that the court thinks proper to consider.
(4) An order under this section has the same effect as a conviction:
(a) for the purposes of any law with respect to the revesting or restoring of stolen property, and
(b) for the purpose of enabling a court to give directions for compensation under Part 4 of the Victims Compensation Act 1996 , and
(c) for the purpose of enabling a court to give orders with respect to the restitution or delivery of property or the payment of money in connection with the restitution or delivery of property.
(5) A person with respect to whom an order under this section is made has the same right to appeal on the ground that the person is not guilty of the offence as the person would have had if the person had been convicted of the offence.
1300 00 2088
Addie v Dumbreck [1929] UKHL 3
ON THIS DAY in 1929, the House of Lords delivered Robert Addie & Sons (Collieries) Ltd v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358; UKHL 3 (25 February 1929).
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1929/1929_SC_HL_51.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
1927 | Buck v Bell
ON THIS DAY in 1927, the US Supreme Court delivered Buck v Bell 274 US 200 (1927).
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality a law of the State of Virginia which allowed the sterilisation of “feeble minded” inmates of institutions with “hereditary insanity or imbecility”.
Click to access Buck%20v.%20Bell_%20Supreme%20Court%20Opinion.pdf
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 