Charles v Griffith
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Manning, J. |
| Judgment Date | 05 November 1954 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1954 HC 1 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Lucia) |
| Docket Number | No. 11 of 1954 |
| Date | 05 November 1954 |
Windward and Leeward Islands Supreme Court. High Court.
Manning, J.
No. 11 of 1954
A.M. Lewis for plaintiff.
G. Mathurin for defendant.
Contract - Terms — Contract for use of motor trucks
Facts: The parties were business friends and made a verbal agreement with reference to the use of certain motor trucks for the conveyance of certain goods. A dispute arose as to the nature of this agreement and whether a partnership existed between the parties.
Held: Co-partnership existed. Order made for a settlement of claim between the two parties.
The parties to this action were apparently business friends in 1950 and 1951; and in the latter year they made a verbal agreement with reference to the use of certain motor trucks for the conveyance of sugar, sugar cane and other products. In 1952 a dispute arose as to the nature of this agreement and the consequent indebtedness of each party to the other; but it was not until the 12th February 1954, that the plaintiff Francis Charles issued at writ of summons against the defendant Belfield Griffith. The declaration set out five causes of action.
With regard to the first cause of action the evidence of Charles was that in 1950 he and Griffith agreed to purchase a motor truck and work it in partnership. The truck, which was subsequently numbered as H555, arrived in March 1951; and Charles paid to the agents his half share of the price, £400. Griffith then informed him that he was unable to pay his half share of £400, but agreed to hire the truck from Charles at the rate of $100 a week. Charles said that he agreed to this modification; and in the particulars attached to his declaration claimed for 21 weeks' hire at the agreed rate less $835 paid on account.
Griffith pleaded to the merits and denied any agreement for the hire of the truck. He alleged that the truck was operated in partnership by himself and Charles and that Charles had been paid his share of the partnership profits.
The burden of proving the hire agreement was on Charles and there was no corroboration save as regards the admitted fact that Griffith drove the truck while it was operating. This fact is as consistent with Griffith's plea as with Charles' allegation. But there is other evidence, which throws serious doubt on the probability of Charles' version. A letter was written by him to Wallace Griffith, father of the defendant Griffith, on February 26 th 1952, in which Charles sets out the items of his claim against the defendant. It fails to mention any sum due as balance for the hire of the truck. This sum was large when compared with the other items; and, if it was genuine claim, it is difficult to appreciate why Charles should have omitted to mention it. The conclusion I arrive at is that there was some agreement between the parties as to the use of truck H555 but that Charles has fail to prove that it was as he has asserted and that this head of claim fails.
The next head of claim is for goods sold and delivered by Charles Griffith. The following items are admitted by Griffith: –
| Dry wood | … | … | $43.20 | |
| Rubber Hose | … | … | 1.60 | |
| Main leaf spring | … | … | 6.70 | |
| Brake linings | … | … | 5.50 | |
| Coconut meal | … | … | 3.00 | |
| One post | … | … | 2.24 | $62.24 |
In addition Griffith admits certain items not claimed by Charles, viz, brake lining, paint and enamel, all amounting to $11.36.
Charles claims for tires and tubes, a total of $456. There is some confusing evidence as to what exactly was...
To continue reading
Request your trial