Ambrose v Dalsoo

JurisdictionSt Lucia
JudgeLewis C.J.,Bishop, J.
Judgment Date11 March 1968
Neutral CitationLC 1968 HC 7
Date11 March 1968
CourtHigh Court (Saint Lucia)
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No. 1 of 1968

West Indies Associated States Supreme Court. (High Court)

Bishop, J. and Lewis, C.J.

Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1968

Ambrose
and
Dalsoo

Practice and procedure - Courts — Magistrates Court — The appellant appealed on the ground that the magistrate did not give reasons for the decision which he made. The magistrate later provided reasons. The issues in the case were whether the appellant and the respondent had an agreement concerning cattle and whether the magistrate's decision was wrong

Held: This was merely a question of credibility. The court could not interfere with the magistrate's decision on a question of credibility except for a good reason.

Lewis C.J.
1

In this case, the appellant filed an action and in his declaration he alleged that by written agreement made on the 18 th January 1958, the defendant delivered to him a mare to keep in share profit and he said that the mare while in his possession had three young ones. First of all he had a mule and he gave it to the defendant, then it had a colt and he kept it, the he said on the 24th of June 1961, the horse had a stallion and it is in respect of his stallion that he claims a half share. He said that the agreement came to an end as a result of the defendant taking his stallion and selling it in October 1965 and refusing to give him his share. He gave evidence and called his wife as a witness but she was unable to assist him as to what the agreement was; but she gave evidence that the stallion was dropped while in the possession of the plaintiff and that he had it in his possession for a time.

2

First of all I should say it is unfortunate the plaintiff did not produce the alleged written agreement in court.

3

The defendant (respondent) in his evidence denied any written agreement. He said that he did not give the horse half share, but that the appellant, who was his good friend and used to exchange things with him, asked him for a colt and he told him to keep an eye on the mare for him when it dropped he could have it.

4

So there was this difference as to what the agreement was. The defendant agreed that the mare dropped first a mule, then a colt which he told the appellant he could have, and then a stallion which he kept. His version was that before the mare dropped the stallion he had terminated the agreement, in fact, the appellant having got the colt he told him, it is all over now, you will not have anything more to do with the mare.

5

...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT