High Court of Australia
OF AUSTRALIA. 477
{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]
RUDOLPH BOESE r ' 3 ; . APPELLANT ; PLAINTIFF,
AND
FARLEIGH ESTATE SUGAR COM- } PANY LIMITED jf Resronpenr. DEFENDANT,
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND.
District Court (Queenstand)—A ppellate jurisdiction—Case stated—Jurisdiction of H.C. oF A. Supreme Court—Inferences of fact—District Courts Act 1801 (Qd.) (55 Vict. 1919.
No. 33), sec. 159. —_~ BrIsBANE,
By sec, 159 of the District Courts Act 1891 (Qd.) it is provided that an 7,7, 99, 93, appeal to a District Court under that section "shall be heard and determined by the Judge of that Court," and that "in any such case, the Judge may state in the form of a special case for the opinion of the Supreme Court any Gavan Dufty question of Inw arising upon the facts of the case, and his judgment shall be *"* "ich 4 affirmed, amended, or reversed, as the Supreme Court, upon the hearing of
the special case, directs.""
Held, that in a case stated under that section by a Judge of the District
Court the ultimate, and not the evidentiary, facts must be clearly and explicitly
set out.
Held, further, that under the section the District Court is the final tribunal
'of fact, and that the Supreme Court has no function of finding facts or drawing
inferences of fact.
Merchant Service Guild of Australasia v. Newcastle and Hunter River Steam- ship Co, Ltd. (No. 1], 16 C.L.R., 591, and Schumacher Mill Furnishing Works Proprietary Ltd. v. Smail, 21 C.L.R., 149, followed. Stenhouse v. Forth, (1908) S.R. (Qd.), 226, approved.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland ; Farleigh Estate Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Boese, (1919) S.R. (Qd.), 98, discharged.
H. C. or A. 1919. —— Borse
v FARLEIGH
USTATE
Suear Co. Lrp.
HIGH COURT (1919.
Appear from the Supreme Court of Queensland.
On an appeal by the Farleigh Estate Sugar Co. Ltd., to the District Court of Queensland held at Mackay, against the decision of the Court of Petty Sessions at Mackay upon a plaint wherein Rudolph Boese was plaintiff and the Company was defendant, a case, which was substantially as follows, was stated by the District Court Judge for the opinion of the Supreme Court of Queensland :—
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate