Newton v Newton

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Wills, J.
• Judgment Date: 01 May 1956
• Neutral Citation: LC 1956 HC 3
• Date: 01 May 1956
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: No. 6 of 1955

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

Wills, J.

No. 6 of 1955

Newton

and

Newton

Appearances:

Vincent Floissac for the appellant.

Donald B. James for the respondent.

Family law - Husband and wife — Maintenance

Facts: The appellant wife instituted proceedings against her husband for neglect to provide maintenance for herself and 3 children contrary to section 665 of the Criminal Code.

Held: Under that section the appellant had failed to prove that she was a person “without other means of support” and the respondent therefore could not be convicted. The appellant's remedy lay by way of a maintenance order under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Ordinance of 1961. Appeal dismissed.

Wills, J.

1 The appellant, the wife, instituted proceedings against her husband, the respondent, for that since 10th July, 1954 at Castries in the First Judicial District he being able by lawful means to support her and his three (3) lawful children namely Romiel aged 7 years, Robert 6 years and Kelly 5 years has neglected so to do——Contrary to Section 665 of the Criminal Code of St. Lucia.

2 The section upon which this complaint is founded is peculiar to the Island of St. Lucia and upon an infraction a husband is liable to suffer grave penal consequences.

1

Summarily to imprisonment for one month. 2. To be deemed a vagrant or idle or disorderly person. 3. Court may order repayment of all monies advanced by a Public Authority to a “relative in want” for maintenance and may direct future payments in a sum not exceeding forty shillings (40s.) per week.

3 The foregoing section has outlived its day and its repeal is recommended.

4 The case was heard and determined by the Magistrate of the First Judicial District and the appellant was the only witness who gave evidence. The case for the appellant (complainant) being closed counsel for defendant, (respondent) submitted that no case was made out for the defendant to answer. He contended that Section 145 of Civil Code imposed an obligation on the complainant to live with her husband and she must show reasonable cause for leaving. He also referred to Article 129 of Civil Code.

5 The magistrate dismissed the case and it is from this decision that the appellant now appeals.

6 The reasons of appeal are as follows: –

“Failure on the part of the complainant to comply with article 129 the Civil Code of St. Lucia is by itself no ground for the dismissal of a complaint under Section 665 of Criminal Code of St. Lucia 1920 “.

7 The offence created by Section 665 is Quasi Criminal and is referable to a failure to comply with any obligation imposed under the Civil Code Part First Book Fifth Chapter Fifth and Chapter Sixth——Article 145.

8 A marginal note is not part of a Section and cannot be construed as such but a court is not precluded from looking at it as it serves as a guide in determining what was the intention of the Legislature and it shows the drift of the Section. Bushell v Hammond 73 L.J.K.B.1005.

9 Upon reading the marginal note and the Section under discussion, it is apparent that the Legislature primarily intended this Section to be used by a Public Authority, which had advanced money or expended public funds in the...