Mitchell v Brown

[1909] HCA 88

10 CLR 456

REGINALD MITCHELL

BERNARD JOSEPH BROWN

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL, by the plaintiff, by special leave, from the decision of the

Supreme Court: Mitchell v. Brown 1, where the facts are stated. A motion was taken out by the defendant to rescind the Dec. 14, 16.

The defendant was tenant to the plaintiff of a house under a lease purporting to be made under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1899, No. 18. During the currency of the lease the house was destroyed by fire. The lease contained a covenant by the defendant " to leave the premises in good repair reasonable wear and tear excepted." The defendant refused to rebuild the house, and the plaintiff sued him for the price, and obtained a verdict This verdict was set aside by the Supreme Court and a verdict entered for the defendant. The question in dispute was the con- struction of the above-mentioned covenant as read in conjunction with the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Loxton and Hammond, for the appellant. Flannery, for the respondent.

THE COURT held that no important point of law was involved in the appeal, as the decision of the Court would only apply to

19 S.R. (N.S.W.), 539 ; 26 W.N. (N.S.W.), 104. 10 CLR 457" text-full="10 CLR 457" text-short="10 CLR 457">10 CLR 457

the construction of the particular document in question in this case. The special leave was therefore rescinded, and the appeal dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed. Solicitors, for the appellant, Hooke &Mein, Dungog, by Bow- man &Mackenzie.

Solicitors, for the respondent, Logan &Carlton, West Maitland, by Sly &Russell.

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE POST-

MASTER-GENERAL

THE PROGRESS ADVERTISING AND PRESS

AGENCY COMPANY PROPRIETARY

DEFENDANTS. LIMITED Post and Telegraph Act 1901 (No. 12 of 1901), sec. 97-Telephone-Regulations-

Prohibition of publication of telephone lists.

Regulation 126A of the Telephone Regulations (Statutory Rules 1908, No. 87), imposes a penalty on any person who, without the authority of the Post- master-General or of the Deputy Postmaster-General of a State, prints, pub- lishes or circulates, or authorizes the printing, publishing, or circulation of, any list of all or any of the subscribers connected with any telephone exchange, and provides that all lists published in contravention of the Regu- lation shall be forfeited to the Postmaster-General and shall on demand in writing be delivered up to him.

Held, that the Regulation is not authorized by sec. 97 (r) of the Post and Telegraph Act 1901 and is ultra vires the Governor-General.

Held, also, that the Act confers no exclusive right on the Postmaster- General to print or publish such lists.