Rex v Strauss
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Court | Natal Provincial Division |
| Judge | Hathorn JP and Henochsberg AJ |
| Judgment Date | 27 October 1947 |
| Citation | 1948 (1) SA 42 (N) |
| Hearing Date | 27 October 1947 |
Hathorn, J.P.:
The appellant was convicted by the magistrate at Verulam of contravening sec. 78 (2) of the Motor Ord. 10 of 1937 and fined £7 10s. 0d. or three weeks' imprisonment with hard labour. Mr. Bizzell, for the appellant, contends that the charge discloses no offence. In order to decide the contention it is necessary to quote sec. 78 (2).
The relevant portion of the charge reads thus:
Hathorn JP
'wrongfully and unlawfullly and without the knowledge or consent of the owner, H. J. Landman, of motor-vehicle N.J. 858, ride in or drive the said motor-vehicle, and did thus contravene sec. 78 (2).'
Section 78 (2) reads as follows:
'Any person who, without the knowledge or consent of the owner or person in lawful charge of any motor-vehicle, rides in or drives such vehicle, or any person who procures the use or charge of...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
7 practice notes
-
S v Van Wyk
...van hierdie woorde tot gevolg dat die appellant skuldig bevind is aan 'n misdaad wat regtens nie bestaan nie. Vide R. v Strauss, 1948 (1) SA 42; R. v Mbisi, 1950 (1) SA 219; R. v Rehlama, 1957 (2) P.H. H164; R. v Rose, 1958 (1) P.H. H23; R. v Khuduga, 1958 (2) P.H. H212; R. v Mohale, 1959 (......
-
Die Staat v Le Grange
...omstandighede wat die bestuur van die voertuig buite die verbod stel, genoeë neem met 'n wete B sonder toestemming. (Vgl. R v Strauss, 1948 (1) SA 42 (N)). Hierdie aspek van die uitleg van die sub-artikel is in hierdie Hof slegs terloops aangeroer. Die respondent het nie daarop gesteun nie ......
-
R v Kuyler
...die wete of toestemming van die persoon wat wettige toesig daaroor het. (Kyk na Regina v Rehlama, 1957 (2) P.H. H.164; Rex v Strauss, 1948 (1) SA 42 (N); Rex v Mbisi, 1950 (1) SA 219 (N); R v Khuduga, 1958 (2) P.H. H.212; R. G v. Rose, 1958 (1) P.H. H.23; R v Mohale, 1959 (1) P.H. Die eleme......
-
Die Staat v Le Grange
...omstandighede wat die bestuur van die voertuig buite die verbod stel, genoeë neem met 'n wete B sonder toestemming. (Vgl. R v Strauss, 1948 (1) SA 42 (N)). Hierdie aspek van die uitleg van die sub-artikel is in hierdie Hof slegs terloops aangeroer. Die respondent het nie daarop gesteun nie ......
Get Started for Free
7 cases
-
S v Van Wyk
...van hierdie woorde tot gevolg dat die appellant skuldig bevind is aan 'n misdaad wat regtens nie bestaan nie. Vide R. v Strauss, 1948 (1) SA 42; R. v Mbisi, 1950 (1) SA 219; R. v Rehlama, 1957 (2) P.H. H164; R. v Rose, 1958 (1) P.H. H23; R. v Khuduga, 1958 (2) P.H. H212; R. v Mohale, 1959 (......
-
Die Staat v Le Grange
...omstandighede wat die bestuur van die voertuig buite die verbod stel, genoeë neem met 'n wete B sonder toestemming. (Vgl. R v Strauss, 1948 (1) SA 42 (N)). Hierdie aspek van die uitleg van die sub-artikel is in hierdie Hof slegs terloops aangeroer. Die respondent het nie daarop gesteun nie ......
-
R v Kuyler
...die wete of toestemming van die persoon wat wettige toesig daaroor het. (Kyk na Regina v Rehlama, 1957 (2) P.H. H.164; Rex v Strauss, 1948 (1) SA 42 (N); Rex v Mbisi, 1950 (1) SA 219 (N); R v Khuduga, 1958 (2) P.H. H.212; R. G v. Rose, 1958 (1) P.H. H.23; R v Mohale, 1959 (1) P.H. Die eleme......
-
Die Staat v Le Grange
...omstandighede wat die bestuur van die voertuig buite die verbod stel, genoeë neem met 'n wete B sonder toestemming. (Vgl. R v Strauss, 1948 (1) SA 42 (N)). Hierdie aspek van die uitleg van die sub-artikel is in hierdie Hof slegs terloops aangeroer. Die respondent het nie daarop gesteun nie ......
Get Started for Free