Mutual Life Insurance Co of New York v Moss [1906] HCA 70

CLR.] OF AUSTRALIA. 311

- in this case is the finding of a Master in Chancery, or, under more H. C. or A. ~ reeent procedure, a Chief Clerk of the Court. It is referred to 1906. him to make inquiry and report. Then we find under Part XV., again, that in analogy to that procedure the Supreme Court for- wards to the Clerk of the House of Representatives a copy of the decision of the Judge. Then, as my colleagues have stated, effect is given to the decision, not by the Court (except as regards costs awarded by the Court), but by Parliament. If an election be declared absolutely void, effect is to be given to that decision of the Court (according to sec. 171), by the holding of a new election. It is not the Court that holds the election—it is Parliament that causes it to be held. For these reasons I concur in the decision that the appeal should be dismissed.

Tliggins J.

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Solicitors, for the applicant, Moss & Barsden. Solicitors, for the respondent, Le Meswrier. i VBACH Vee

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

_ MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF NEW as E YORK } APPELLANTS;

2 DEFENDANTS,

AND

MORRIE MELVILLE MOSS, OFFICIAL RECEIVER IN BANKRUPTCY AND

TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF H. 1 { RESPONDENT: BLAKE DECEASED . PLAINTIFF, H.C. or A. 1906. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF eae WESTERN AUSTRALIA. Rie '

_ Life Asswrance—Warranty not to die by own hand, sane or insane—Circumstantial Evidence — Suicide — Motive, evidence of, when admissible—New trial — Griffith¢.J.

Sagat fox Barton and Misdirection. Higgins JJ.

H.C, oF A. 1906, ee)

Morvat Lire IysuRANCE Co, or New

HIGH COURT (1906,

In considering the conduct of a man, regard must be had to the ordinary course of human affairs ; and when the question for consideration is whether an extraordinary and a wicked act is intentional or not, it is of importance to consider whether the person in question, in the circumstances in which he was placed, had any inducement to form such an intention.