Johansen v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited [1904] HCA 43

186 HIGH COURT

H, ©, or A. watching to detect a wife in the commission of the offence, 194 adultery of which the appellant complains having, as pointed Davis by Lord Chelmsford, begun long before. What the appellant ya

Dartiaxn doing was merely seeking evidence of an existing fact. Hi

Hows. then can it be suggested that he connived at or willingly "to the commencement of the adulterous intercourse ?

evidence is to the contr: opinion, afford any evidence of connivance on the part of petitioner in the sense in which that word is used in the Matri monial Causes Act. 3

The appellant was therefore entitled to succeed.

Alt

The facts in this case do not, in

Appeal allowed, with costs against the respondent. Decree nisi for dissolutic of the marriage, with costs, to be absolute in three months. Costs of sui to be paid by co-respondent.

Proetors for appellant, Shipway & Berne.

CAW (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.) JOHANSE! ee ; PLAINTIFF; a CITY MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE : SOCIETY, LIMITED... } hs

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREM# COURT OF

QUEENSLAND.

H.C. or a, Practice—Special leave to aypeal—Grounds for granting—Matter of public interat 1904. —Not granted on mere questions of fact—Judgment appealed from unattended ray) with suficient doubt,

Sypyey, Special leave to appeal to the High Court from a judgment of the Supreme

Dec. 13. Court of a State, in a case involving less than the appealable amount, will at = be granted by the High Court where the questions involved are mere questions

Grn 0.3, of fact, nor, even in a case involving an important question of law, if the

oConmor 3 judgment from which leave to appeal is sought appears to the Court to be 'unattended with sufficient doubt to justify the granting of leave. j

OF AUSTRALIA. 187

- paty Tiegraph Newopaper Co. Ltd. v. McLaughlin (1 C.L.R., 479); H.C. ov A. {198}, A.C., 776), followed. i : 1904, "Applicaton for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Supreme ——— 'Court of Queensland ([1904] St. R- Qd., 288), refused. Tesanby, Fs Crry Morvan "Monos for special leave to appeal ine Assi This vas an action brought by the applicant as executrix of {norm Johansen, deceased, to recover £150 and bonuses under a = —— iy of assurance effected by the deceased with the defendants in his own life. At the trial Cooper C.J., who presided, sub- ied to the jury a great number of questions, all of which, with "te exception of two, the jury found in favour of the plaintiff {is Honor, upon the findings of the jury, gave judgment for the 'pintff for £109 13s., the amount to which the jury found that he was entitled. The defendants appealed to the Full Court to have the judgment side on the ground that the findings of the jury in the plain- 'tif' sfavour were against the evidence, or to have judgment entered 'forthe defendants on the ground that the judgment was contrary tolw. | The Full Court, after argument allowed the appeal with costs 'and ordered a new trial (1). "The facts sufficiently appear from the judgment. "Hart for the applicant. An important question of law is involved, affecting insurance companies in general, viz., the con- uction of an article of association: Sun Fire Office v. Hart (2). is also a question of estoppel and of the authority of 'gents: Ruben v. Great Fingall Consolidated and others (3); werstaff v. Rowatt's Wharf Limited (4). 'There is also a ques- narising on the construction of sec. 22 of the Life Asswrance