Goodridge v Goodridge
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Wills, J. |
| Judgment Date | 03 May 1956 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1956 HC 4 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 2 of 1956 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Lucia) |
| Date | 03 May 1956 |
Windward and Leeward Islands Supreme Court. Appellate Jurisdiction
Wills, J.
Appeal No. 2 of 1956
J.G.M. Compton for the appellant.
Vincent Floissac for the respondent.
Family law - Husband and wife — Maintenance
Horace Goodridge the appellant in this case is a speculator living at Millet, Castries, St. Lucia and he appeals from an Order of the Magistrate of the First Judicial District made on the 6th January, 1956.
A Summons was issued against him on the complaint of Julia Goodridge his wife who therein stated that he had deserted her since 5th November 1955.
Contrary to Section 2 of Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Ordinance, No 9 of 1916, Revision.
On the ground of such desertion she applied for an order and succeeded in her application as the magistrate found that she had been deserted by her husband and ordered him to pay ($5.00) Five Dollars per week for her maintenance.
The husband appeals from this order.
The appellant filed no reasons of appeal as provided by Section 1113 (1) of the Criminal Code and is therefore limited to the General Statutory grounds of appeal as set out in Section 1118 of the Criminal Code.
-
(1) that he is not guilty.
-
(2) that the decision is altogether unwarranted by the evidence.
The wife deposed that she was married to the appellant on 2nd August 1955 and lived “well” with her husband for only 2 weeks thereafter there was continuous quarrels culminating on 5th November 1955 when under threats and fear of her life and having been ordered by her husband to leave the matrimonial home she was forced so to do.
She narrated that on the day in question her husband lifted her up to throw her down—-she struggled with him. She was thrown to the floor. The husband raised a gun to shoot her, told her to go away that if he found her inside his house on his return he will shoot her. He further told her he was no longer responsible for her and that he did not want any “coolie” inside his house.
She further swore that her husband was associated with another woman and that this woman went to reside in the matrimonial home the day after she was forced out and that the woman was still living with her husband in the matrimonial home.
The wife's evidence was supported by a witness Antoine Anthony. This witness in answer to a question put to him by the magistrate stated “Complainant” no longer lives at defendant's house, Theresa another woman lives there.
The appellant after hearing that his wife was taking proceedings against him visited her in company with the Police and requested her to return to the house.
The wife refused the offer.
The husband in his evidence stated that he and his wife lived in “perfect harmony and love” and that there was no incident at all between himself and wife on 5th November 1955. Nothing happened. He went out and on his return he found his wife had gone away.
On being cross-examined he said “the only thing I can suggest is that my wife was being tutored by her family.
The appellant did not deny the statement made by his wife and her witness that he was associated with another woman and that the woman Theresa we living with him in the matrimonial home.
He also stated under cross-examination that he heard his wife had filed a case against him before he went to her to ask her to come back.
The appellant led the evidence of two witnesses, one a Corporal of Police who stated he accompanied the appellant to his wife and heard her refuse to return with him and the other witness stated that she used to live in room next to “appellant and his wife, she never heard any quarrels between defendant and his wife and that defendant sits on the floor and complainant sits on him”.
The magistrate saw and heard the several witnesses give their evidence and was in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial