Reynold v Gladstone

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Wills, J.
• Judgment Date: 16 January 1959
• Neutral Citation: LC 1959 HC 1
• Date: 16 January 1959
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: No. 8 of 1958

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

Wills, J.

No. 8 of 1958

Reynold

and

Gladstone

Appearances:

K. Foster for appellant

D. McNamara for respondent

Practice and procedure - Magistrate's court — Dismissal of action.

Facts: This was an appeal from a decision in which the magistrate dismissed an action on the ground that it was brought against the wrong person. The court found the case came to an abrupt end and that the magistrate stopped the case with the result that the respondent was denied the opportunity of giving evidence or calling a witness to answer the appellant's case.

Held: The cogency of the evidence was on the appellant's side. The magistrate erred in law and was wrong on the facts as he found them. Decision of magistrate set aside. Case remitted to magistrate's court for a hearing de novo.

Wills, J.

1 The appellant instituted civil proceedings against the respondent in an action brought in the First District Court.

2 The following was stated in the declaration of the appellant: “that on the 27 ^th day of June 1958 at St. Joseph in the Quarter of Castries within the First Judicial District of this Colony the defendant's dog attacked the plaintiff on a road and bit her on the right leg whereby the plaintiff suffered injury”.

3 The plaintiff' claims:

• (1) $14.40 damages and

• (2) The costs hereof.

4 The magistrate, after hearing the case of the appellant, dismissed the action with costs on the ground that the action was brought against the wrong person.

5 The appellant appeals from this decision.

6 The record of appeal discloses that the trial Magistrate did not observe the requirements of Article, 880 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7 The Article reads “Written pleadings are not required, but may be made. In the-absence of written pleadings the Magistrate puts on record the nature of tile defence”.

8 There is no defence, put on record and the notes of evidence do not unequivocally show that the respondent denied that she was the owner of the dog that did damage to the appellant.

9 The appellant before the magistrate deposed in her examination in chief that the dog in question was the respondent's clog and in her cross examination the following note appears: “the defendant's husband lives in the same house where the dog stays. It is Mr. Gladstone's house his wife and his dog. This statement in cross-examination is wide and...