Monrose v Auguste
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Bishop, J. |
| Judgment Date | 25 July 1968 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1968 HC 16 |
| Date | 25 July 1968 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Lucia) |
| Docket Number | No. M28 of 1968 |
West Indies Associated States Supreme Court. (High Court)
Bishop, J.
No. M28 of 1968
I. D'Auvergne for Petitioner
M. Gordon for Respondent
Document - Improbation — The plaintiff filed a petition in an action of incidental improbation seeking leave to proceed against the notarial document. The plaintiff contended that the defendant's mother (now deceased) did not know or approve of the contents of the document. The question was whether the notarial document was void. Evidence was given by the Notary Royal and other witnesses that the deceased signed the document after hearing it read and agreeing to its contents — The plaintiff had failed to prove the allegation contained in the articles of improbation — Petition dismissed.
On the 20 th December 1966 Leonard Auguste filed an action against Josephine Monrose in which he alleged that his mother Felicite Auguste, before her death on the 7 th January 1964, had borrowed the sum of Four thousand eight hundred dollars with interest from Soufriere Reconstruction Loan with which she built a house on a portion of land at 28 Bridge Street in Soufriere, which portion of land she had bought earlier.
He alleged further that he was making annual payments to off-set this loan and other payments to cover taxes and fire insurance in respect of the house; and that his mother had “by a notarial document dated the 8 th August 1961 executed before C.A.M. Compton, Notary Royal and witnesses acknowledged that these movies were being paid for her account by the plaintiff.”
The declaration filed by Leonard Auguste also alleged that despite numerous demands by him of Josephine Monrose, his sister, who was named the executrix and universal legatee in their mother's will (probate of which was granted on 8th February 1964) for reimbursement and the movies paid by him for the account of his mother.
Josephine Monrose “neglected to settle the claim” and remained “in possession of all the property of the deceased Felicite Auguste”. At the same time that the declaration was filed, the solicitors for Leonard Auguste also filed a list of exhibits and these included a certified copy of a notarial document of Felicite Auguste before C.A.M. Compton, Notary Royal dated the 8 th August 1961. Through her solicitor Josephine Monrose entered appearance and filed a defence to this action on the 16 th January 1967.
On the 15 th of June 1967, Josephine Monrose, filed a petition in an action of incidental improbation seeking leave to proceed against the notarial document dated 8 th August 1961. Hearing, of the petition was concluded on the 29 th June 1967, and it was granted. Following the grant of the petition an application for deposit of documents was dismissed on the 20 th January 1968; and another similar application was brought by Josephine Monrose; following that application, on the 17 th April 1968 the articles of improbation were filed on her behalf.
Leonard Auguste, the defendant in improbation filed his answer on the 13 th May 1968. The issues were thus joined and their trial entered upon on the 12 th July 1968.
It is the contention of the plaintiff in improbation that is, Josephine Monrose that Felicite Auguste did not know and approve of the contents of the document dated 8 th August 1961, and in the articles of improbation he quoted particularly the part of the document which read as follows:
“1. That I wish and desire after my death that my son Leonard Auguste be paid all movies paid by him towards defraying the loan for Four thousand eight hundred dollars which said loan is being paid at any annuity of Three hundred and thirty-one dollars. Since this loan my said son Leonard Auguste has been paying the said annuity and also the sum of Forty-four dollars and sixteen cents house tax annually, and the sum of Forty dollars for Fire Insurance with respect to the said building known as 28 Bridge Street in the Town of Soufriere. This amount is to be paid to him by my heirs-at-law before any demand can be made by them for the ownership of the said property.”
The plaintiff in improbation alleged further and I quote:
“2. That at the time of the execution of the said alleged will the deceased was unable to sign her name, and that the name Felicite Auguste appearing in the said will was not the true name of the deceased nor was the said name written by her.
“3. That the Revocatory clause was omitted in the said alleged will.”
In reply to these several allegations, the defendant in improbation denied that Felicite Auguste did not know and approve of the contents referred to, and contended that the notarial document dated 8 th August 9161 was read over to Felicite Auguste “who executed it with full knowledge of the contents and that at the time of such execration the said Felicite Auguste did herself sign the said document in the presence of Joseph St. Price Sexcuis of Soufriere, Clive Alexis and Clive A.M. Compton, Notary Royal, all being present at the same time and each signing in the presence of the others. The defendant in improbation also pleaded that he would rely on article 830 of the Civil Code of St. Lucia.
Counsel for the plaintiff led evidence from Josephine Monrose herself and one witness – Authur Wells a life long friend of Felicite Auguste.
The testimony of Josephine Monrose indicated that in January 1961 her mother Felicite Auguste, then about 68 years of age was living at Leonard Auguste's home, and that she, the plaintiff in improbation visited her mother there about two or three times a day. The plaintiff in improbation expressed the following opinion; “she was dotish then and could not do anything for herself”. The plaintiff in improbation also testified about her mother's handwriting and her inability to write in her last years of life. She said that she could not recollect having seen her mother write in 1961 and indeed that she was unable to do so then, and as far as she could recollect the last time she saw her write was in 1959.
Josephine Monrose dealt specifically with the document dated 8 th August 1961 and she expressed the view that the signature on it was not that of her mother because she never spelt her name as it appeared to be spelt on that document, and also because it did not resemble her handwriting. She compared the writing and spelling of a signature of another document produced as an exhibit, which signature she said was that...
To continue reading
Request your trial