Boddie v Calixte et Al
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Wills, J. |
| Judgment Date | 30 November 1956 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1956 HC 5 |
| Date | 30 November 1956 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Lucia) |
| Docket Number | No. 9 of 1956 |
Windward and Leeward Islands Supreme Court. High Court. (Appellate Jurisdiction)
Wills, J.
No. 9 of 1956
H.J. Francois for appellant.
John Compton for respondents.
Practice and procedure - Magistrate's Court — Whether magistrate decided case on correct principle.
Facts: The Magistrate dismissed the plaintiff's action on the ground that he could not decide between the defendant and the plaintiff which had the better title to land.
Held: There was no such question to determine and the magistrate erred in law. He decided the case on a wrong principle. Case remitted to the magistrate with a direction to assess damages as claimed by the defendant and to enter judgment for the plaintiff.
Magistrate having heard the whole case dismissed the plaintiff's action on the ground that he could not decide between the plaintiff and the defendants which had the better title to land.
There being no question of title to land to determine the magistrate erred in law and decided the case on a wrong principle.
Case remitted to magistrate with directions –
-
(1) to assess damages as claimed by plaintiff
-
(2) to enter judgment for plaintiff with costs.
On the 22nd June 1956 the plaintiff-appellant-obtained the issue of a Civil Summons in damages against the defendants-respondents — in which the plaintiff claimed that he is and was at all material dates the owner of a vegetable garden at Waterworks near the town of Castries.
That on Sunday May 6th 1956 the defendants unlawfully entered his said garden and without authority took and carried away one basket value 84 cents and some dasheen plants value $1.20 all being the property of the plaintiff.
That the defendants on 10th, June 1956 took possession of his garden which contained dasheen, tannia and yam plants to the value of $39.00 and reaped the said crops, all being the property of the plaintiff.
The parties with counsel respectively appeared before the magistrate of the 1st District Court on the 12th October 1956 when the case was heard and at the conclusion of the said hearing the magistrate dismissed the plaintiff's case.
The plaintiff being dissatisfied has appealed from this decision.
The evidence of the plaintiff was to the effect that some time prior to October 1955 he obtained the permission of the owner of the land in question at Water Works, near the town of Castries, to plant and keep a vegetable garden That he did cultivate a vegetable garden and had therein crops ready to be picked on all material dates.
The owner of the land in question was Samuel Thomas and whose sister Lilian Thomas was his duly constituted attorney.
On the 6th May 1956 the plaintiff was at his garden and had a basket containing some dasheens holding in his hand when the two (2) defendants ran upon him and took away his basket with the contents. A few weeks later the defendants reaped the crops, which he had planted.
The plaintiff therefore claimed damages for the loss of his basket and vegetables.
The plaintiff led evidence showing that he was not a trespasser. He called Lilian Thomas who gave evidence as to the permission given to the plaintiff to keep and cultivate a garden on the land in question. This Witness also produced her Power of Attorney and a Deed of Sale showing the purchase and title of Samuel Thomas to the land in question. These two documents were put in evidence.
The plaintiff also called a Rural Constable, one Clifton Poyotte who depose as to his personal knowledge of seeing the plaintiff for about 3 years planting and working the garden, on the land in question and as to his going at the invitation of the plaintiff to the garden in question on the 6th May 1956 and appraising...
To continue reading
Request your trial