Henzie v Wilson
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Wills, J. |
| Judgment Date | 11 March 1955 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1955 HC 1 |
| Docket Number | No. 59 of 1954 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Lucia) |
| Date | 11 March 1955 |
Windward and Leeward Islands Supreme Court. High Court.
Wills, J.
No. 59 of 1954
JGM Compton for the plaintiff.
A.M. Lewis for defendant.
Real property - Ownership — Proof
Facts: The plaintiff sought to obtain damages for trespassing from the defendant. The issue was whether the plaintiff had produced enough evidence of the fact that he was in possession of the land in question.
Held: The plaintiff had no documentary evidence to prove ownership. Under article 763 of the Civil Code the plaintiff had failed to prove his case satisfactorily. Judgment entered for the defendant.
The plaintiff sought to obtain damages for trespass and an order to restrain the defendant “by himself, his servants or agents from entering upon or crossing the plaintiff's lands or causing damage therein or permitting others to enter or cross the same. “
During the hearing and on the conclusion of the case both counsel agreed and urged in their address to the court that there was only one point or question for the court to determine and that was one of fact viz: -Whether or not the evidence satisfied the court that the plaintiff was in possession of the land in question and defendant trespassed on the said land.
This issue is a very simple one but as many witnesses were called it becomes necessary for the court to analyse the evidence.
At the hearing no question of law was raised by either counsel and none discussed.
Facts: The plaintiff deposed that when a boy he left his mother and lived with his reputed father Eugene Felix and that Eugene Felix planted the land in question and he also assisted in so doing.
After his father became ill and rendered incapable to work the land that he the plaintiff, took over the land, and planted it. He did so for over 30 years. The plaintiff in the course of his evidence said that his father “gave” him the land but it must here be noted that plaintiff produced or led no evidence as to a Deed of Gift or other notarially executed document capable of being registered to support this part of his evidence.
The plaintiff further deposed that after the death of his reputed father he continued on the land reaping and planting up to the when the defendant was alleged to have trespassed on the land and picked the breadfruit.
Counsel for defendant by cross-examination not only raised doubts as the veracity of the plaintiff but also totally destroyed the case, which the plaintiff had hoped to set up,
During this examination the plaintiff was forced to admit that he made no new gardens on the land for about 4–5 years now past, also that he paid taxes only once and that was in the year 1954. No explanation has been forthcoming as to his reason for not paying taxes for the past years of alleged possession or why he paid only for the year 1954 when his case brought.
It was also established that the plaintiff's mother was never married to Eugene Felix, his reputed father, and further, that the said Eugene Felix was a married man and that his wife lived with him and that his (Eugene Felix) widow is still alive and plaintiff knows where she is now residing.
On the day of the alleged trespass, the plaintiff stated that he saw the defendant picking breadfruit from a tree which he claims to be his property and of his land and that he asked the defendant who gave him authority to do so; and the defendant replied “not to ask him any question and that he could do as he liked” or words to that effect. The plaintiff then said that he picked up breadfruits and took them to Police Station where he made a report. This bit of evidence was contested only as to that portion, which deals with the taking away of the 2 breadfruits by the plaintiff to the Police. The defendant's version on this point is that the plaintiff never went to the Police at all, that he never picked up 2 breadfruits at all, but after they had the discussion the plaintiff went off on his business.
It must be noted that the plaintiff did not call any Police Witness to verify any report made...
To continue reading
Request your trial