Peterswald v Bartley
| Peterswald v Bartley | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Peterswald v Bartley |
| Decided | 31 August 1904 |
| Citation(s) | [1904] HCA 21, (1904) 1 CLR 497. |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) |
Peterswald v Bartley [1904] NSWStRp 28; (1904) 4 SR (NSW) 290 |
| Subsequent action(s) | none |
| Case opinions | |
|
(3:0) The Court considered the meaning of excise in relation to section 90 (per Griffith CJ, Barton & O'Connor JJ) |
|
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ |
Peterswald v Bartley is an early High Court of Australia case that dealt with section 90 of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits States from levying excise.
Bartley was a brewer of beer at Cootamundra in the state of New South Wales. He had a licence under the Commonwealth Beer Excise Act 1901 however he didn't have a licence under the NSW Liquor Act 1898.Sergeant Peterswald was a police officer and District Licensing Inspector and he charged Bartley with carrying on the trade or business of a brewer without holding a licence under the NSW Act and the issue concerned the payment of a licence fee. The Police Magistrate upheld Bartley's contention that the licence fee was an excise duty and that the effect of section 90 of the Australian Constitution was that the state Act ceased to have effect once the Commonwealth imposed uniform customs duties. Peterswald appealed to the Supreme Court of NSW, where the Sergeant was represented by the then Attorney-General of NSW, Bernhard Wise KC. The Supreme Court, by a majority, Darley CJ and Owen J, dismissed the appeal. Pring J dissented.
...
Wikipedia