Martyr v Williams

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Wills, J.
• Judgment Date: 11 August 1958
• Neutral Citation: LC 1958 HC 4
• Date: 11 August 1958
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: No. 5 of 1958

Supreme Court of the Windward Islands and Leeward Islands. High Court (Appellate Jurisdiction)

Wills, J.

No. 5 of 1958

Martyr

and

Williams

Appearances:

C. Compton for appellant.

H. Giraudy for respondent.

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Unlawful removal of goods.

Facts: Under section 427 of Criminal Code of St. Lucia the appellant was convicted of removing certain items, the property of the respondent, from the room belonging to the appellant. The issue was whether the conviction could be upheld.

Held: The question of whether the appellant was under a duty to keep the goods of the respondent safe after removing them from the appellant's room was a matter of civil rights between the parties, and as such did not fall within the scope of criminal proceedings. Conviction quashed. Appeal allowed.

Wills, J.

1 The respondent deposited certain household articles in the room of a house of which the appellant was the owner.

2 On the morning of 15th April 1958, about 7 o'clock the appellant spoke to the respondent, who was then at a window of the house.

3 The appellant told her to leave the house by 10.00 o'clock that day. The respondent replied that she would not leave. The appellant left and returned to the premises about 9.20 a.m. accompanied by two men. The appellant thereupon removed the articles of the respondent from his house and deposited them into the yard. This was done in the presence of the respondent who stood nearby looking on.

4 On the 18th April 1958, the respondent lodged complaint in the Magistrate's Court against the appellant for unlawfully interfering with her household articles contrary to Section 427 of the Criminal Code.

5 The magistrate of the 3rd District Court convicted the appellant and from which he now appeals.

6 Section 427 reads:

“Whoever without lawful authority or excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, uses or interferes with or in any other way, commits any wrong or trespass in respect of, to, or upon any animal, boat, vehicle or other thing whatsoever, is liable … … ….”

7 At the close of the prosecution, the magistrate held the view that a prima facie case was made out and called on the appellant for a defence.

8 In the instant case, the appellant had to satisfy the magistrate that such interference was by reason of lawful authority or excuse.

9 At the close of the case, the magistrate made certain findings of fact. The following...