Innocent v Allert
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Bishop, J. |
| Judgment Date | 28 March 1966 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1966 HC 3 |
| Date | 28 March 1966 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Lucia) |
| Docket Number | No. 20 of 1964 |
Supreme Court
Bishop, J.
No. 20 of 1964
Contract - Debt — Plaintiff claimed the sum of $1,250 which represented the overpayment of a debt to the defendant — Defendant counterclaimed for the sum of $2,7250 which was lent to the plaintiff — Court found in favour of the defendant
Julius Innocent, the plaintiff has claimed a refund from Gifford Allert, the defendant, of the sum of one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars with interest. According to the plaintiff this amount represented an overpayment of a debt due by him to the defendant.
In his declaration, the plaintiff alleged that on the 1 st June 1958 the defendant lent him two thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars and that it was orally agreed between them that he would repay the defendant quarterly payments as agreed and he continued to do so until about the month of July 1962 when he discovered that he had “in error and by mistake overpaid to the defendant the sum of one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars” and the defendant has notwithstanding the plaintiff's demands, refused to refund the sum of one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars.
It is clear that repayment of the full amount at the rate of two hundred and fifty dollars each quarter would have taken eleven quarters; or in other words, in the absence of default in payment, the loan would have been repaid in full within 2 3/4 years from the date it was made. Equally clear in the declaration is the allegation that the plaintiff contained payments at the agreed rate for a further five quarters and therefore instead of terminating the payments in the year 1960, the plaintiff continued paying until the year 1962.
The declaration was filed on 28 th March 1964 and appearance in person was filed on 31 st March 1964. However more than a year elapsed — according to the record — before any further step was taken. On the 7 th April 1965 defence and counterclaim were filed and presumably by Floissac and Giraudy who were described thereon as defendant's solicitors, but who — from the record – never entered an appearance in the matter.
The defendant admitted that he lent the plaintiff the sum of two thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars on the 1 st June 1958 and that there was the agreement between them as alleged by the plaintiff; however, he denied that any payment were made by the plaintiff or at all.
In the counterclaim, the defendant claimed the sum of two thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars with interest as a debt owed to him by the plaintiff, and he referred to a promissory note made by the plaintiff for the said sum of money.
The plaintiff joined issue with the defendant and denied any indebtedness to the defendant.
At the conclusion of the evidence counsel declined to address the Court except to say that they regarded the matter as a question of fact entirely, and therefore for the Court to decide after due consideration of the evidence.
I agree with the view of counsel that the issue raised in this case is solely a question of fact to be determined from the testimony, and for this reason I do not propose to consider further or comment in this judgment on the submission which was belatedly raised contesting the admissibility of a document which had been earlier admitted without any objection by counsel.
Therefore, all that is required in this case is an analysis of the evidence in the light of the accepted principle that he who asserts must prove, and the accepted standard of proof, which is a balance of probabilities.
The plaintiff Julius Innocent and a Witness George Bonnette gave evidence in...
To continue reading
Request your trial