R v Dreyer and Another

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1954 (3) SA 646 (C)

R v Dreyer and Another
1954 (3) SA 646 (C)

1954 (3) SA p646

Citation	1954 (3) SA 646 (C)
Court	Cape Provincial Division
Judge	Ogilvie Thompson J and Hall J
Heard	April 28, 1954
Judgment	June 17, 1954

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde A

Criminal procedure — Confiscation order under sec. 366 (2) of Act 31 of 1917 — Of an illegal object such as a gambling machine — When notice to owner not essential.

Headnote : Kopnota

A mere statement by an accused person, unsupported by sworn testimony, who has been shown to have been in possession of an illegal object such B as a gambling machine for some six months, to the effect that someone in Madeira is its owner is not sufficient either to establish that fact to the satisfaction of a court of law or to preclude the court from directing that the illegal object be confiscated in terms of section 366 (2) of Act 31 of 1917.

In sentencing appellants for a contravention of section 1 of Act 5 of 1939, in that they had operated or exposed for use a gambling device known as a 'Bell Fruit' machine, the magistrate had ordered the C confiscation of the machine. In an appeal from this order appellants contended that the order was incompetent in that the machine did not belong to them and that no notice of the application had been given to the owner who lived abroad.

Held, that such notice was not essential where the owner of a prohibited gambling machine had allowed it to come under the control and into the possession of someone else under circumstances which made that possession a criminal offence and which rendered the machine liable to confiscation.

R v Daniels and Another, 1936 CPD 331, distinguished; R v Nobrega, 1949 (4) 402 (C), not approved.

D Held, further, as there was no evidence that the machine was owned by someone other than the accused, that the appeal should be dismissed.

R v Nobrega, 1949 (4) 402 (C), distinguished.

Case Information

Appeal from an order under sec. 366 (2) of Act 31 of 1917 made in a magistrate's court. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

A. A. Purcell, for the appellant. E

F. P. Rousseau, for the Crown.

Cur adv vult.

Postea (June 17th).

Judgment

F Hall, J.:

The appellants in this case were convicted of contravening sec. 1 of Act 5 of 1939 in that they operated or exposed for use a gambling device known as a 'Bell Fruit' machine. In addition to sentencing the appellants to a fine the magistrate made an order G confiscating the machine and it is against this order that the appeal is lodged.

The grounds of appeal are that this order was not competent in that the machine did not belong to the appellants and no notice of the application for confiscation...