Marshall v Lawrence

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Wills, J.
• Judgment Date: 01 August 1958
• Neutral Citation: LC 1958 HC 2
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 3 of 1958
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 01 August 1958

Supreme Court of the Windward Islands and Leeward Islands.

Wills, J.

Appeal No. 3 of 1958

Marshall

and

Lawrence

Appearances:

K. Monplaisir for the appellant.

D. McNamara for respondent.

Real property - Ownership.

Facts: The respondent alleged that she bought the house in question, the property of the appellant from the appellant during the period of their cohabitation. The question was whether there was evidence to show that the respondent was now the owner of the house. The respondent produced a receipt purporting to show that she had bought the house.

Held: The relationship of the parties at the time of the transaction had to be taken into account. The respondent was not working at the time. The evidence did not establish any conclusive acts of ownership on the part of the respondent. Appeal allowed.

Wills, J.

1 The appellant and respondent lived and cohabited as man and wife from he year 1954 to the month of June 1957, when they separated.

2 During the period of such cohabitation, to wit, on the 10th September 1955, he appellant with his proper money bought the house, now in dispute, from by Wilson Lawrence, the brother of the respondent, for the sum of $110. The sale by Wilson Lawrence and purchase by the appellant was admitted by the respondent. The appellant took delivery of the house and removed it from Bexon to Lastic Road, Leslie Land, and with his proper money paid Clyde Vaughn, a carpenter, to erect it on land rented by the appellant from one Alphonse.

3 The appellant and respondent did not live in the house. The appellant let the house to tenants and the respondent acted as his agent in the collection of rents.

4 The appellant paid the rent for the land on which the house was erected and aid the taxes levied on the house by the proper authority.

5 The respondent claimed that she bought the house from the appellant during their cohabitation on the 3rd January 1957. The respondent has paid no taxes or land rent in respect of the house. On the 1st March 1958, a door and a window of the house were damaged. The appellant alleged that the respondent did the damage and the respondent in turn alleged that the damage was done by the appellant.

6 On the 11th March 1958, and 5th April, 1958, the respondent and the appellant filed actions against each other in the Magistrate's Court. Each party claimed damages in trespass——

Special damages–	Repair door	$15.00
	Repair window	10.00
and General damages	…. …	15.00
		$40.00

7 The magistrate gave judgment in favour of the respondent in the sum of $30.00 and costs and dismissed the action of the appellant against the respondent.

8 The appellant appeals against the judgment of the magistrate in the case brought by the respondent against him.

9 The appellant in his defence before the magistrate denied the respondent to be owner of the house and he further denied that he committed any trespass on the 1st March 1958, by damaging the door and window of the respondent's house.

10 The respondent, being a plaintiff, must make proof of her claim before judgment could be given in her favour.

11 The respondent in her evidence said that she bought the house for $150.00 from the appellant on 3rd January, 1957, and put in evidence a receipt marked Exhibit “LLI”.

12 The appellant on oath denied that he gave the respondent receipt Exhibit “LLI” and further said that the signature on the said receipt was not his. The receipt Exhibit “LLI” being put in issue, the respondent must now give satisfactory proof that she paid the appellant $150 and in pursuance of such payment the appellant delivered and put her in possession of the house.

13 On a survey of the whole evidence and a perusal of the reasons for decision, it is abundantly clear to this curt that the magistrate did not apply his mind to the law outstanding in the case.

• (1) It is accepted law that a receipt is not conclusive evidence against the party who signs it.

• (2) That a simple receipt is not conclusive evidence of payment.

14 It follows that a receipt...