Remy v Robert
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Bishop, J. |
| Judgment Date | 10 July 1968 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1968 HC 15 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Lucia) |
| Date | 10 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 28 of 1967 |
West Indies Associated States Supreme Court. (High Court)
Bishop, J.
No. 28 of 1967
E. Henry Giraudy for the plaintiff.
D.A. McNamara for the defendant.
Real property - Conversion — The plaintiff sought damages for trespass and conversion. It had been found that the defendant dismantled the house which belonged to the defendant without permission — The plaintiff had be wrongly deprived of the materials by the defendant. An order would be made that the plaintiff be granted damages in the sum of $100.00, the value of the structure, and general damages for loss of materials in the sum of $50.00.
On the 18 th of February 1967, Theresa Remy, the plaintiff in this action filed through her solicitors a declaration in which she claimed special damages and general damages from Imbert Roberts, the defendant in this action for trespass and conversion.
On the 16 th March 1967, the Registrar filed a certificate of non-appearance by the defendant, and default was entered against him. On the same date the plaintiff solicitors filed what is described as an “inscription for judgment ex parte”. Then on the 5 th May 1967, the plaintiff solicitors filed an “inscription for proof of hearing”. On the 12 th May 1967, the date which was fixed for hearing, counsel for the plaintiff sought an adjournment on the ground that it was likely that the matter would be resolved among the parties and the hearing was then adjourned for a week.
On the 17 th May 1967, the defendant solicitors filed an application under article 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which the defendant sought relief from the default entered against him and leave to enter appearance. The application was entertained on the 27 th May and on the 1 st July 1967, and an order was made whereby the defendant was relieved from the default entered against him and was granted leave to enter an appearance within eight days. The defendant was also ordered to pay costs which were fixed at the sum of twenty-five dollars.
Appearance was entered by the defendant on the 7 th July 1967 and with the consent of the plaintiff solicitors, a defence to the declaration was filed on the 18 th July 1967.
The plaintiff claim twelve hundred dollars special damages and general damages for trespass and conversion on her property. It is the plaintiff's case that she was the owner of two chattel houses valued at six hundred and fifty dollars and four hundred dollars respectively, situated on Leslie land in the vicinity of the city of Castries, and that the defendant entered into an oral agreement with her agent in August 1965 to dismantle one of these houses, and he, without lawful authority, dismantled and took away both of her houses along with a bedstead valued at one hundred and fifty dollars.
The defence which was pleaded was that in August 1965 one Julienne Paul, a cousin of the plaintiff was the owner of a portion of land at Leslie to land on which there was a ruined double gable house and not two houses. That she asked the defendant to knock down and remove the double gable house, and to build a new house on the same spot of land. He did so, and the wood from the dismantled house was sold to him by Julienne Paul for sixty dollars which he paid her. The bedstead was never removed by him but was given by Julienne Paul to one of the workmen, a Mr. Francis.
The plaintiff gave evidence and called her cousin Julienne Paul as witness, along with two workmen Felix Albert a carpenter and Francis James a laborer.
In defence of the allegation, the defendant gave evidence and called as witness Julius Regis a mason, and Julian Charles, Notary Royal. Counsel on both sides have admitted that this case is almost exclusively a question of fact. It is clear that the relevant facts emerge from the evidence of arrangements which were made at a time when the chief parties were close friends, and because the evidence was given nearly three years later at the time when the friendship no longer existed, and, indeed the relationship had become strained the facts have not been easy to determine. (This case in fact reminded me of the article called “Fiat Justitia” which appears in the new Law Journal Volume 1 18 No. 540 page 524 which perhaps counsel have read or have read for themselves). However, I have analyzed the testimony in an effort to determine which account of the event is probably the correct one and I can only hope that I have done no injustice.
Theresa Remy and Victoire Remy are sisters, and Julienne Paul is their cousin. Theresa is about eighty-three years of age and Victoire who is also very old, is blind as well. Julienne was married, but her husband Ashton Paul died in an accident overseas on the 10 th December 1963. During his life, Ashton and the defendant were close friends, or to use the defendant's own words, he was and I quote “brother pal of the husband”. When Ashton Paul died the defendant assisted Julienne Paul in getting compensation for her children. He also advised her of her husband's plans, such as he knew them. This advice included that she should build her own house and be happily settled; and the defendant offered his services as builder free of charge. Mrs. Paul lived in the same house with the Remy sisters and around the end of June 1965 she completed the purchase of land at Leslie land from Victoire Remy. Julian Charles, the Notary Royal prepared the deed of sale, and because Victoire Remy was blind he read aloud and explained its contents...
To continue reading
Request your trial