Rex v Katz and Another
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Judge | Watermeyer CJ, Tindall JA, Greenberg JA, Schreiner JA and Davis AJA |
Judgment Date | 16 October 1945 |
Citation | 1946 AD 71 |
Hearing Date | 04 October 1945 |
Court | Appellate Division |
Watermeyer C.J.:
The first accused in this case was the owner of a butcher's shop and the second accused, his servant, was in charge of the sale of meat from the shop. They were charged in the magistrate's court of Klerksdorp, on 10 counts, with the offence of selling meat from the shop at prices in excess of the maximum prices permitted by the price control regulations and were found guilty on nine of the counts. They appealed to the Transvaal Provincial Division, which confirmed the magistrate's decision. The matter is now before this Court on appeal.
The main contention, which was advanced on behalf of the appellants in support of the appeal, was that the magistrate permitted the prosecutor to lead certain evidence which was inadmissible and that the accused were so seriously prejudiced by this misreception of evidence that a failure of justice has resulted. Counsel for the appellants contended that three separate and distinct portions of the Crown evidence were inadmissible. The first portion was the testimony of a witness named Gladys Wakfer. It was as follows:-
"I know witness No. 2. He works in a butchery at Orkney. I am not sure of the name. I always did buy my meat at that
Watermeyer, C.J.
butchery. I have spoken to accused about the prices of the meat about five weeks ago. I went to his shop. I told accused No. 2 that rump steak was 1s. 2d. and that he was selling it for 1s. 9d. He replied that the man who sold rump steak for 1s. 2d. is doing himself down. About a week later I went back to accused No. 2 after I had bought rump steak in Klerksdorp for 1s. 2d. and told him about it.. Accused No. 2 then said he would find out about the price. A few weeks later I returned to him and asked him whether he had found out about the prices and he replied that he had but was not prepared to sell at those prices. He said if I was not prepared to pay his price I knew what to do."
This evidence was given on 27 November and in order that its bearing on the issue before the Court may be appreciated it is necessary to set out in somewhat greater detail some of the charges against the accused. The maximum price at which the accused could sell rump steak under the price control regulations was fourteen pence a pound, and in five of the counts, on dates between 16th October and 27th October, they were charged with selling rump steak at 1s. 9d. per pound. The main evidence in support of those charges was given by two customers, whose course of dealing with the accused was as follows: Each of them owned an account book in which she wrote her orders for meat. The book was called for by a servant of the accused and the meat ordered subsequently delivered, together with the book, at the customer's house.
On four occasions an order for one pound of rump steak was written in the account book and on one occasion an order for two pounds. When the meat was delivered and the book returned the price of the rump steak had been filled in at 1s. 9d. in the case of the one-pound orders and 3s. 6d. in the case of the two-pound order. In some counts other than those dealing with rump steak the price had been filled in by the customer and no alteration was made by the accused. Neither of the two customers had weighed the meat an receipt but each had assumed that the correct weight had been delivered and they had paid the price which had been entered in the book.
Seeing that the meat was not weighed by the customers when it was received, it was possible for the accused to have set up the defence that he had supplied larger quantities of meat than had been ordered by his customers and, consequently, that he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
2011 index
...69R v K 1956 (3) SA 353 (A) ........................................................................ 36-37R v Katz 1946 AD 71...................................................................................... 80R v Kewelram 1922 AD 213 ..........................................................
-
S v Mthembu and Others
...(PC); R v Rorke 1915 AD 145; R v Lipschitz 1921 AD 282; R v Pharenque 1927 AD 57; R v Kalkiwich and Kruger 1942 AD 79; R v Katz and Another 1946 AD 71; R v Khan 1954 (2) SA 340 (A); R v Solomons 1959 (2) SA 352 (A); S v Green 1962 (3) SA 886 (A); S v Mokoena 1967 (1) SA 440 (A); S v Sinkank......
-
S v Mthembu and Others
...(PC); R v Rorke 1915 AD 145; R v Lipschitz 1921 AD 282; R v Pharenque 1927 AD 57; R v Kalkiwich and Kruger 1942 AD 79; R v Katz and Another 1946 AD 71; R v Khan 1954 (2) SA 340 (A); R v Solomons 1959 (2) SA 352 (A); S v Green 1962 (3) SA 886 (A); S v Mokoena 1967 (1) SA 440 (A); S v Sinkank......
-
Savoi and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another
...BCLR 656; [2010] 3 All SA 304): dicta in para [5] applied J 2014 (5) SA p320 R v D 1958 (4) SA 364 (A): referred to A R v Katz and Another 1946 AD 71: referred to R v Matthews and Others 1960 (1) SA 752 (A): referred to S v Banana 2000 (3) SA 885 (ZS) (2000 (2) SACR 1): referred to S v Coet......
-
S v Mthembu and Others
...(PC); R v Rorke 1915 AD 145; R v Lipschitz 1921 AD 282; R v Pharenque 1927 AD 57; R v Kalkiwich and Kruger 1942 AD 79; R v Katz and Another 1946 AD 71; R v Khan 1954 (2) SA 340 (A); R v Solomons 1959 (2) SA 352 (A); S v Green 1962 (3) SA 886 (A); S v Mokoena 1967 (1) SA 440 (A); S v Sinkank......
-
S v Mthembu and Others
...(PC); R v Rorke 1915 AD 145; R v Lipschitz 1921 AD 282; R v Pharenque 1927 AD 57; R v Kalkiwich and Kruger 1942 AD 79; R v Katz and Another 1946 AD 71; R v Khan 1954 (2) SA 340 (A); R v Solomons 1959 (2) SA 352 (A); S v Green 1962 (3) SA 886 (A); S v Mokoena 1967 (1) SA 440 (A); S v Sinkank......
-
Savoi and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another
...BCLR 656; [2010] 3 All SA 304): dicta in para [5] applied J 2014 (5) SA p320 R v D 1958 (4) SA 364 (A): referred to A R v Katz and Another 1946 AD 71: referred to R v Matthews and Others 1960 (1) SA 752 (A): referred to S v Banana 2000 (3) SA 885 (ZS) (2000 (2) SACR 1): referred to S v Coet......
-
Savoi and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another
...146 (SCA) (2010 (7) BCLR 656; [2010] 3 All SA 304): dicta in para [5] applied R v D 1958 (4) SA 364 (A): referred to R v Katz and Another 1946 AD 71: referred to R v Matthews and Others 1960 (1) SA 752 (A): referred to F S v Banana 2000 (2) SACR 1 (ZS) (2000 (3) SA 885): referred to S v Coe......
-
2011 index
...69R v K 1956 (3) SA 353 (A) ........................................................................ 36-37R v Katz 1946 AD 71...................................................................................... 80R v Kewelram 1922 AD 213 ..........................................................
-
Recent Case: Evidence
...finding, and in fact on ly refers to it in the sentence quoted above. The Supreme Cour t of Appeal refers to the case of R v Katz 1946 AD 71 in support of its approach (at para 19). However, the Katz case is distinguishable in th at the accused was charged with five instances of sel ling ......