Rex v Van Tonder

JurisdictionSouth Africa
Citation1950 (3) SA 688 (E)

Rex v Van Tonder
1950 (3) SA 688 (E)

1950 (3) SA p688


Citation

1950 (3) SA 688 (E)

Court

Eastern Districts Local Division

Judge

Reynolds J, and Sampson J

Heard

May 30, 1950

Judgment

June 12, 1950

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

War — Emergency Regulations — Meat Control — War Measure 56 of 1946 (Proc. 206 of 1946), Reg. 8 (4) read with Reg. 9 (1) (a) — Applicability of — Criminal law — Other offences — Carrying on trade as dealer in meat without being registered with Meat Control B Board — 'Carrying on trade' — What amounts to — Sale — Presumption of.

Headnote : Kopnota

In an uncontrolled area where no notice had been issued under Regulation 8 (1) (a) of Proclamation 206 of 1946 (War Measure 56 of 1946), a person can slaughter stock without a permit on his own farm so long as this is not done at an abattoir or slaughter pole, and therefore cannot be C charged with a contravention of Regulation 8 (4) read with Regulation 9 (1) (a).

On a charge of contravening Regulation 21 read with Regulation 24 of Proclamation 265 of 1945, as amended, it being alleged that the appellant had carried on a trade in dealing with meat without being registered with the Meat Control Board as a dealer in meat, the evidence showed that the slaughterings on appellant's farm, which were frequent, D were altogether outside his domestic necessities; that none of the meat had been used on the farm at all; that the carcases had been sawn in two and the offal dressed and all taken away in sacks by appellant himself; that such sacks had been taken away in a lorry at early morning and that appellant had returned with the lorry empty after two days.

Held, that a presumption arose that the appellant had slaughtered all E the stock for sale and that presumption became final when appellant failed to give evidence or an explanation.

Case Information

Appeal from a conviction in a magistrate's court. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

E. F. van der Riet, K.C., for the appellant: The magistrate's reasoning as to what is 'an abattoir or slaughter pole' within the meaning of the War Measure 56 of 1946 is unsound, and the appeal from the conviction on the first count should succeed. F

P. J. Joubert, for the Crown, did not support the conviction on the first count. G

Cur adv vult.

Postea (June 12th).

Judgment

H Reynolds, J.:

In this matter appellant was charged before the magistrate of Somerset East on two counts both relating to alleged unlawful slaughtering of stock and contravening the Meat Control Regulations.

In the first count he was charged with contravening Reg. 8 (4) read with Reg. 9 (1) (a) of Proc. 206 of 1946 (War Measure 56 of 1946) in that between first January, 1947, and 31st December, 1949, and at his farm Moedersonkraal in Jansenville District (that

1950 (3) SA p689

Reynolds J

District being neither a controlled area nor one subject to Reg. 8 (1) (a) and within two miles of the boundary of Somerset East District, he did slaughter about 900 goats and sheep at an abattoir or slaughter pole without being in possession of the necessary permit from the Meat Control Board.

A On the second count he was charged in that at the same place and during the same time he contravened Reg. 21, read with Reg. 24 of Proc. 265 of 1945, as amended, in that he carried on a trade in dealing with meat without being registered with the Meat Control Board as a dealer in meat.

B The accused pleaded not guilty to both counts but was found guilty on both. On the first count he was fined £25 or two months' imprisonment with hard labour, and on the second £15 or one month's imprisonment with hard labour. Against this conviction on count 1 he appeals since he C contends that in an uncontrolled area he may slaughter stock without a permit so long as he does not do so at a slaughter pole or abattoir, and so Reg. 8 (4) does not penalise his actions as proved. Against his conviction on count 2 he appeals on the ground that there was no evidence that he carried on any trade or business...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Ex parte Die Minister van Justisie: In re S v De Bruin
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...teen die regsbevoegdheid van die hof nie. Art. 154 van die Strafproseswet, 56 van 1955; Rex v Meyers, 1946 A.A. 57; Rex v van Tonder, 1950 (3) SA 688; S. v Shangase, 1964 (1) SA 776; (c) waar die misdaad binne die afstand van twee myl oor die grens van die distrik B of streekafdeling geplee......
1 cases
  • Ex parte Die Minister van Justisie: In re S v De Bruin
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...teen die regsbevoegdheid van die hof nie. Art. 154 van die Strafproseswet, 56 van 1955; Rex v Meyers, 1946 A.A. 57; Rex v van Tonder, 1950 (3) SA 688; S. v Shangase, 1964 (1) SA 776; (c) waar die misdaad binne die afstand van twee myl oor die grens van die distrik B of streekafdeling geplee......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT