Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a29e06fcfee4c60e

Jump to content

R v Mataung

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

R v Mataung[1] is an important case in South African law, heard and decided in the Orange Free State Provincial Division on 13 August 1953. Brink J wrote the judgment; Van Blerk J concurred.

Facts

[edit]

The accused had pleaded guilty to and been convicted of arson, in that he had set alight a grass hut.

Judgment

[edit]

On review, the Orange Free State Provincial Division held that, in the absence of evidence that the hut was of an immovable nature, the conviction and the sentence should be set aside. The court referred to and applied the decision of Innes CJ in R v Mabula,[2] which held that the property affected had to have been immovable property for the definition of arson to be met.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Case law

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. 1953 (4) SA 35 (O).
  2. 1927 AD 161.