Cameron v Irwin [1908] HCA 3

856 HIGH COURT (1908.

H. C. or A. Questions answered accordingly. 1908. Solicitor, for the plaintiff, The Crown Solicitor for the Com- ATTORNEY-

GENERAL or monwealth.

pasar Solicitor, for the defendant, The Crown Solicitor for New

Coutzctox oF . Cosroms ron South Wales.

NSW. pants Cc. A. W. (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.) CAMERON : J i : 4 . : APPELLANT ; PLAINTIFF, AND IRWIN anp OTHERS. . ; : . RESPONDENTS. DEFENDANTS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

H.C. ov A. Appeal lo High Court—Special leave.

bee In an action in the Supreme Court of Western Australia the jury found a Mmcoave, Yetdiet for the plaintiff for £200, and judgment was entered accordingly. On eae a application to the Full Court to set aside the judgment on the ground of

absence of evidence, the Full Court reversed the judgment below and entered judgment for the defendants.

O'Connor, : . Isaacs and Special leave to appeal to the High Court was refused. Higgins JJ.

AppLicaTION for special leave to appeal.

An action was tried in the Supreme Court of Western Australia at Kalgoorlie, by Burnside J. and a jury, by which the plaintiff Robert Miles Fletcher Cameron, a legally qualified

OF AUSTRALIA.

y Offley Irwin and three others, who were also legally

on of the defendants having combined to injure him in profession. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 00 damages, and judgment was entered accordingly.

The defendants applied to the Full Court to set aside the gment on the ground that there was no evidence that the of the defendants was to injure the plaintiff. On 23rd ecember 1907 the judgment was reversed and judgment was

ved for the defendants with costs.

The plaintiff now applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Full Court.

'Starke, for the appellant. The Full Court has entered judg- nent for the defendants without setting aside the verdict of the jury and without any motion to set it aside, and there were grounds for setting it aside. There is no authority for such a ourse being taken. — [Grirvrra C.J.—Special leave to appeal is never granted on a technical error.] It is very important that the principle of not interfering with the verdict of a jury should be upheld. — [Villenewve Smith referred to Rules of Supreme Court, Order XVI. No. 10; National Mutual Life Association of Austral- wia Ltd. vy. Kidman (1).] 'There there was a motion for a new trial. [Isaacs J. referred to Scown v. Howarth (2); Ogilvie v. West é alian Mortgage and Agency Corporation (3).) there was evidence from which reasonable men could find that combination of the respondents, however well formed, was to oppress the appellant and did injure him. (Counsel also to Martell v. Victorian Coal Miners' Association (4); Wicklow and Weaford Railway Co. v. Slattery (5); y. London and South Western Railway Co. (6).] (0) 8C.LR,, 160. ALT, 120. ) 25 V.L.R., 88; 21 A.L.T., 36. (5) 3 App. Cas., 1155.