Brownell v. Brownell

Brownell v. Brownell

The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to compel an answer to a question that, as posed at that time, was irrelevant, immaterial and vexatious; an appellate court erred in ordering a new trial for that reason and should not substitute its judgment for the trial judge absent improper exercise of discretion.

Citation
(1909) 42 SCR 368
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Alonzo Aaron Brownell; Plaintiff Respondent: Mildred Vernon Brownell
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 October 1909
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Accounting/partnership / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of British Columbia (in Banc)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
Cross Examination, Discretionary Power of Trial Judge, Vexatious and Irrelevant Questions, Bigamy, Laches, Statute of Limitations, New Trial
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Evidence Family Law Appeal Cross Examination Discretionary Power of Trial Judge Vexatious and Irrelevant Questions Bigamy +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alonzo Aaron Brownell

Defendant Appellant

Mildred Vernon Brownell

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Accounting/partnership / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of British Columbia (in Banc)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in disallowing a cross-examination question seeking the name of the defendant's bigamous wife
  2. 2 Whether an appellate court may order a new trial for alleged undue restriction of cross-examination when the trial judge exercised discretion to exclude vexatious or irrelevant questions
  3. 3 Scope and reviewability of a trial judge's discretion to protect witnesses from vexatious or irrelevant questioning

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to compel an answer to a question that, as posed at that time, was irrelevant, immaterial and vexatious; an appellate court erred in ordering a new trial for that reason and should not substitute its judgment for the trial judge absent improper exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs here and below
  • Order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia setting aside the trial judge's judgment and ordering a new trial is set aside