218:
77:, a slightly earlier case, Dove-Wilson JP had rejected the defence of impossibility, since in there the duty with which the accused had failed to comply was an absolute one: "It is no excuse for him to say that he was ignorant . It was his duty to make himself aware of it, and if his neglect to do so has brought about his failure , he has contravened the law."
30:, with its bearing on the defence of impossibility. It was heard in the Natal Provincial Division on April 22, 1929, by Dove-Wilson JP, Tatham J and Matthews J. It was an appeal from the Durban Magistrate's Court. TB Horwood appeared for the appellant and JDM Rosenow for the Crown. The appellant's attorneys were CP Robinson & Goulding.
67:
Dove-Wilson JP held on appeal for the Natal
Provincial Division that the appellant did not know and could not have known of the date of the meeting until after it was held. In addition, it would have been physically impossible for him to attend even if he had known the date. There was, therefore, no
42:
The magistrate, in his reasons, stated that he was satisfied, on the facts set out above, that it was physically impossible for appellant to attend the meeting. He convicted the appellant because he must have been aware, when he left the Union, of the act of insolvency which must have preceded his
38:
The appellant sailed for India on
October 11, 1926; his estate was provisionally sequestrated on October 13, 1926. In March 1929, after his return, he was convicted of contravening section 142(a) of the Insolvency Act, in that he had failed to attend the first meeting of his creditors, held on
107:
259:
146:
43:
sequestration. His failure to attend the meeting, therefore, was due to his own fault in leaving the Union with knowledge of such act. The magistrate referred to
159:
288:
252:
298:
293:
278:
245:
172:
91:
86:
27:
283:
50:
45:
225:
55:
229:
272:
73:
217:
53:, and said that, since the trial, his attention had been drawn to the case of
233:
253:
8:
260:
246:
120:
7:
214:
212:
232:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by
14:
216:
289:South African criminal case law
92:South African law of insolvency
1:
299:South African case law stubs
294:KwaZulu-Natal Division cases
68:ground for his conviction.
315:
211:
87:South African criminal law
28:South African criminal law
279:1929 in South African law
224:This article relating to
226:case law in South Africa
26:is an important case in
16:South African legal case
39:November 11, 1926.
51:R v Mayer Brothers
241:
240:
193:(1927) 48 NPD 12.
127:(1929) 50 NPD 91.
46:R v Mahomed Abbas
306:
284:1929 in case law
262:
255:
248:
220:
213:
203:
200:
194:
191:
185:
182:
176:
169:
163:
156:
150:
143:
137:
134:
128:
125:
314:
313:
309:
308:
307:
305:
304:
303:
269:
268:
267:
266:
209:
207:
206:
201:
197:
192:
188:
184:CPD (24-12 28).
183:
179:
170:
166:
157:
153:
144:
140:
136:Act 32 of 1916.
135:
131:
126:
122:
117:
100:
83:
65:
36:
17:
12:
11:
5:
312:
310:
302:
301:
296:
291:
286:
281:
271:
270:
265:
264:
257:
250:
242:
239:
238:
221:
205:
204:
195:
186:
177:
164:
151:
138:
129:
119:
118:
116:
113:
112:
111:
99:
96:
95:
94:
89:
82:
79:
64:
61:
35:
32:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
311:
300:
297:
295:
292:
290:
287:
285:
282:
280:
277:
276:
274:
263:
258:
256:
251:
249:
244:
243:
237:
235:
231:
227:
222:
219:
215:
210:
199:
196:
190:
187:
181:
178:
174:
168:
165:
161:
155:
152:
148:
142:
139:
133:
130:
124:
121:
114:
109:
105:
102:
101:
97:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
80:
78:
76:
75:
74:Rex v Korsten
69:
62:
60:
58:
57:
52:
49:
47:
40:
33:
31:
29:
25:
24:
19:
234:expanding it
223:
208:
198:
189:
180:
167:
154:
141:
132:
123:
103:
72:
70:
66:
54:
44:
41:
37:
22:
21:
20:
18:
104:Jetha v Rex
23:Jetha v Rex
273:Categories
106:(1929) 50
98:References
56:R v Moosa
81:See also
63:Judgment
228:is a
158:1916
145:1916
115:Notes
34:Facts
230:stub
175:130.
162:233.
149:178.
48:and
202:13.
173:HCG
147:CPD
110:91.
108:NPD
71:In
275::
171:6
160:AD
59:.
261:e
254:t
247:v
236:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
