CATHCART & ANOR. V. SPEE

1N THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CATHCART. & ANOR «0

OP ee

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Judgment delivered at___SYDNEY

W, M, Houston, Gort, Print., Melb, Bales

Ve

This is an appeal from an order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales refusing a new trial in a ease where the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff in an action claiming dasages for personal injuries.

My. Woodward has argued the ease with clearness and candour but we think that. this appeal cannot succeed.

The sole ground on which it is based is that the jury's verdict was against the evidence and the weight of the evidence, It is not contended, and never hax been contended, that if the jury believed the plaintiff to the exelusion of other evidence there was not evidence fit to go to the jury of negligence on which a verdict might be found in favour of the plaintiff. What is contended is that there is such a great preponderance of evidence in favour of a more probable solution of the accident that occurred and that the probabilities are s extrenely high that the verdict ought not te be allowed to stand, The contention is that it 1s an wireasonable conclusion to draw from all the evidence which was adduced. It is, in our opinion, entirely « question of credibility whieh the jury attached to the various witnesses ond of the inferences vhich they chose to draw from such eireumstances as they found. It is clear that a very close investigation of the case was made by the jury and it is not a case where you ¢an point to a definite wisunderstending or error in the course of thelr consideration of the case as a whole; it is simply a case where they preferred to take a view vhich aseording to the appellants, the defendants, was entirely erronegus, an error which ean be seen on & consideration of the preponderance of evidence and the probabilities.