Machin v Josephine Machin [1916] HCA 9; (1916) 21 CLR 127 (10 March 1916)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Harry Machin Petitioner, Appellant; and Josephine Machin Respondent, Respondent.

H C of A

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

10 March 1916

Griffith C.J., Barton, Isaacs, Gavan Duffy and Rich JJ.

Woolf, for the appellant.

The judgment of the Court, which was delivered by Griffith C.J., was as follows:—

Griffith C.J.,

Barton, Isaacs, Gavan Duffy and Rich JJ.

We cannot entertain this appeal until notice of appeal has been served upon the respondent. It would, therefore, in any view, be necessary to grant an adjournment in order to allow notice to be served. But we have looked at the facts in order to see whether any useful purpose would be served by an adjournment, and it appears that it is impossible to hold that the learned Judge was wrong in saying that he was not satisfied that the respondent had deserted the appellant. Under these circumstances it would be useless to adjourn the hearing of the appeal, and the only course is to strike it out.

Appeal struck out.

Solicitor for the appellant, J. Woolf.