Referendum Act of 1908, apart from other considerations, shows by its very nature that it was not intended to confer thereby a power of altering the Constitution of either House of Parliament thereunder. The plaintiffs contend that, if it were not so, the passage of the Bill to abolish the Legislative Council would immediately neutralise the Referendum Act, and make it valueless, whereas the provisions of the Act contemplate its continued existence. The plaintiffs also contend that under the provisions of s. 10, if the referendum poll is decided in favour of the Bill, the fact that the Bill is to be presented to the Governor for His Majesty's assent merely, and is not to be reserved, shows that it was not contemplated by the Legislature that its provisions were applicable to a Bill which must be reserved for His Majesty's assent. We are inclined to think that there is no force in either argument. In the first, the mere fact that by its operation in a particular case, its further use is impossible, is no argument to establish its inapplicability in that particular case. We know of no reason why an Act should not be brought into existence which may be applicable to many purposes, and amongst those many purposes to one that will make its further application for any purpose from its very nature impossible. We think that the provision "presented to the Governor for His Majesty's assent" are general words, covering both classes of Bills; those that need not be, and those that must be, reserved for His Majesty's assent. This, we think, is sufficiently shown by the supposedly repealed provisoes to s. 9 of The Constitution Act of 1867. In the first proviso the Act speaks of a Bill, that under the second proviso must be reserved, as one in regard to which "it shall not be lawful to present to the Governor of the said Colony for Her Majesty's assent," etc., words similar to those of the Referendum Act "presented to the Governor for His Majesty's assent." 5. The question that arises depends, to a certain extent, on whether The Constitution Act Amendment Act of 1908, which, in the Statute as recorded in the Supreme Court and as printed, purports to have been merely assented to, and not as reserved for His Majesty's assent, properly received the Royal assent. The Attorney-General has produced certain documents which. F.C. TAYLOR AND ATTORNEY- Lukin J. F.C. TAYLOR AND OTHERS V. ATTORNEYGENERAL AND OTHERS. Lukin J. convey the suggestion that a copy of the Bill had in fact been previously assented to by His Majesty's Imperial Government, and that the Governor had previously received instructions from His Majesty to assent thereto, and that he had assented accordingly to the Bill. If such be the case, then, under the third proviso of s. 1 of the Australian States Constitution Act of 1907, the actual reservation would have become unnecessary. The other question to be considered in regard to the matter isthe question as to whether The Constitution Act Amendment Act of 1908, though expressed to be an Act to amend The Constitution Act of 1867, was such as was required by law to be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure; and whether, although it might come within proviso 3 of s. 1 referred to above, it was necessary that s. 33 of The Australian Constitutions Act of 1842, requiring the signification of His Majesty's pleasure to both Houses of Parliament, should be complied with before it had any operative effect. We do not think it necessary at the present stage to express any opinion on this question. On the whole case, then, we are of opinion as expressed in the judgment already delivered (1). (1) Ante, p. 219. [IN THE FULL COURT]. COLEMAN v. AUSTRALIAN CO-OPERATIVE FERTILISERS LIMITED. Complaint-Complaint substantially following words of statute The Fertilisers Act of 1914 (5 Geo. V., No. 8), s. 9-Sufficiency of complaint. A complaint charging the defendant with an offence against s. 9 of The Fertilisers Act of 1914, which substantially followed the words of that section, with the exception that the words, such fertiliser was substituted for the word "fertilisers," is sufficient to charge an offence against that section. SPECIAL CASE UNDER S. 226 OF The Justices Act of 1886. The special case set out the complaint, which was as follows:The complaint of Frederick Freutel Coleman, of Brisbane, in the State of Queensland, an Inspector duly appointed under the provisions of The Fertilisers Act of 1914, made this 5th day of April, 1917, before the undersigned, one of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the said State, who says that on or about the 8th day of February, 1917, at Brisbane aforesaid, Australian Co-operative Fertilisers Limited, being a company duly registered and incorporated under the provisions of The Companies Acts, 1863 to 1913, and being a dealer within the meaning of The Fertilisers Act of 1914, sold to J. Lewis Clarke a fertiliser-namely, natural guano-which upon analysis under the last-mentioned Act, was found to contain a smaller percentage of nitrogen than the proportion thereof stated on the label attached to each package containing such fertiliser, and such deficiency as to nitrogen amounted to 88 per centum of the total nitrogen certified to be present in such fertiliser contrary to the Act in such case made and provided. The special case further stated that on the application of counsel for the respondent, the Police Magistrate dismissed the complaint, on the ground that it disclosed no offence under s. 9 of The Fertilisers Act of 1914, and ordered the appellant to pay certain costs; and submitted to the Full Court as the question of law arising in the case, whether he was right in dismissing the complaint, on the ground that such complaint disclosed no offence under s. 9 of The Fertilisers Act of 1914. 1917. June 7, 26. Cooper C.J. Shand J. F.C. COLEMAN V. Co-OPERATIVE 66 The Fertilisers Act of 1914, s. 9, provides (so far as material) : AUSTRALIAN Every dealer who sells a fertiliser which, upon analysis under this Act, is found to contain a smaller percentage of nitrogen, potash in readily soluble form, water soluble, or citrate soluble, or total phosphoric acid than the proportions thereof respectively stated in the invoice certificate delivered in pursuance of this Act upon the sale thereof, or stated on the label affixed to the package containing the fertiliser in pursuance of this Act, or on the label attached to each package containing such fertiliser, and such deficiency as to nitrogen amounts to five per centum of the total nitrogen certified to be present in fertilisers; or shall be guilty of an offence against this Act." Shand J. Fahey (for Macleod on active service with His Majesty's Forces), for the appellant. Walsh for the respondent. On the question of the sufficiency of the complaint counsel refered to The Justices Act of 1886, ss. 47 and 48; The Acts Shortening Act of 1867, s 11; Reg. v. Ah Sam (1), Deery v. Abrahams (2), Hedberg v. Woodhall (3), Kelly v. Wigzell (4), Plumb v. Tritton (5), Smith v. Moody (6), Toohey v. Kerr (7), R. v. Justices of South Brisbane, Ex parte Thornton (8). The judgment of the Court was read by C.A.V. SHAND J. The complaint in this case substantially follows the words of s. 9 of the statute, except that it substitutes the words "such fertiliser" for the word "fertilisers." The word "fertilisers" in the statute is no doubt very inappropriate, but can, we think, only have reference to the particular fertiliser which, on analysis, is found to contain a smaller percentage of nitrogen than that specified in the invoice certificate delivered in pursuance of the Act, or the label affixed to the package containing the fertiliser in pursuance of the provisions of the Act, or the label attached to each package containing the fertiliser. In these circumstances the complaint, in our opinion, charged the respondent with one of the offences created by s. 9, and it is for the Magistrate to determine what the elements of that offence (1) 1886, 2 Q.L.J. 144. (2) 1896, 7 Q. L.J. 30. (3) 1913, 15 C.L.R. 531 at p. 534. (5) 1915, 20 C.L. R. 408 at p. 412. (6) [1903] 1 K.B. 56 at p. 63. (7) 1907, Q. W.N. 21. (8) 1903, St. R. Qd. 152. may be, and whether any such offence has, in fact, been committed. In our opinion, then, the Magistrate was wrong in dismissing the complaint as not disclosing any offence. For these reasons we think that the appeal should be allowed, and the case sent back to the Magistrate to enter an adjournment in lieu of the order dismissing the complaint, and to proceed to hear and determine the case according to law. We think that the respondent should pay to the appellant his costs of this appeal. Appeal allowed; question submitted answered in the negative; case remitted for hearing and Solicitor for appellant: The Crown Solicitor. Solicitors for respondent: Feez, Ruthning & Baynes. F. C. COLEMAN . AUSTRALIAN Co-OPERATIVE FERTILISERS LIMITED. Shand J. |