Hill v Ziymack - [1906] HCA 19

DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES. H.

Action for conversion-Ounership of goods-Question of fact - Conflict of evidence-

Verdict of jury conclusive.

In an action for conversion, the whole question for the jury was whether April 6, 9, 10.

the goods were the property of the plaintiff or the defendant. There was conflict of evidence, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.

Held, that, although there was strong evidence upon which the jury might have found a verdict the other way, the verdict was one which reasonable men properly understanding the evidence could find, and should not be disturbed.

3 CLR 727

Where there is a conflict of evidence, the verdict of the jury will not be set aside, unless the evidence on the other side is overwhelming, or is supported by facts or documents as to which there can be no question.

Decision of the majority of the Supreme Court, 25th August 1905, reversed.

APPEAL from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The appellant, administratrix of the estate of her husband, W. C. Hill, brought an action against her husband's mother, the respondent, for conversion of certain station stock and plant, which were alleged to have been given by the respondent to her son, and had been seized by her after his death. A very large amount of evidence was given on both sides, the details of which are not material to this appeal. The main question was whether the goods in question belonged to the plaintiff or the defendant, and on this point there was a conflict of evidence. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and the Full Court (consisting of Owen, Cohen and Pring JJ.) on motion to set aside the verdict, by majority (Cohen J. dissentiente), set aside the verdict on the ground that it was unreasonable, and ordered a new trial 25th August 1905.

From this decision, being interlocutory, the present appeal was brought by leave of the High Court.

J. L. Campbell and Mitchell, for the appellant. Gordon K.C. and Rolin, for the respondent. (The arguments of counsel are not reported, as they dealt April wholly with the facts, and no question of law was involved.)

GRIFFITH C.J. This case has been very fully argued, and as we have had an opportunity during the adjournment of considering the matter, nothing would be gained by reserving it for con- sideration.

The action, which was for trover, was brought by the appellant as administratrix of the estate of her husband W. C. Hill against her husband's mother, to recover the value of certain stock, sheep, horses and station plant generally, which had been seized by the respondent after her son's death. The question for the jury was whether these goods were the property of Hill or of the respondent.

3 CLR 728

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, the appellant. The

learned Judges of the Full Court set…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hill v Ziymack

Details

AGLC: Hill v Ziymack [1906] HCA 19
Case: [1906] HCA 19
Decision Date: 10 April 1906

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Hill v Ziymack*, the Full Court of the High Court of Australia considered an action for conversion brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Hill, against the defendant, Mr. Ziymack. The dispute concerned the ownership of certain goods, and the matter had proceeded to a jury trial where a verdict was returned in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed this verdict to the Full Court.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the jury's verdict, which turned on a question of fact regarding the ownership of the goods, was conclusive. The Court was required to determine if there was any legal basis upon which to overturn the jury's finding, given the nature of the action and the evidence presented.

The Court held that an action for conversion is fundamentally a question of fact, and where there is a conflict of evidence, the verdict of a jury is generally conclusive. In this instance, the jury had heard the conflicting evidence and made a determination as to ownership. The Full Court found no error in the conduct of the trial or the jury's deliberation that would warrant setting aside their verdict. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders