St. Croix v Solomon

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Lewis, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 11 April 1970
• Neutral Citation: LC 1970 CA 5
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1 of 1970
• Date: 11 April 1970

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J.; Lewis J.A.; St. Bernard, J.A. (Ag.)

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1 of 1970

St. Croix

and

Solomon

Appearances:

V.A. Cooper for appellant.

Respondent in person.

Family law - Paternity — Evidence of visits by appellant taken into account in determining paternity.

Lewis, J.A.

1 This is an appeal against an order of the Magistrate of the First District in St. Lucia dated January 10 ^th 1970, adjudging the appellant to be the putative father of a child named Brenda born to the respondent on February 28 ^th 1967. By this order the appellant was also directed to pay the respondents two dollars a week for Brenda's maintenance until she attained the age of sixteen years. The appellant was dissatisfied with the Magistrate's adjudication and has appealed therefrom on the following grounds:

• (1) That no sufficient evidence of maintenance was given of the particular child, and the evidence showed that the appellant maintained other children with the respondent and used to go there to see them.

• (2) That the verdict is entirely against the weight of the evidence.”

2 The substantial argument put forward on the appellant's behalf however, was that there was no corroboration of the respondent's story in a material as required by law.

3 The evidence disclosed that the parties lived together as man and wife for a period of about eighteen years, during which time four children were born to the respondent, of whom the appellant is admittedly the father. At some date, not precisely stated in the evidence, the parties caused to live together in the same house.

4 When the complaint was heard on January 10 ^th 1970, the respondent stated that the separation took place in the “year before last.” She would thus appear to be referring to the year 1968. On the other hand, the appellant said in his evidence that he had no connection with the respondent after Bryan, one of the children was born, but as the date of Bryan's birth was nowhere stated in the evidence, this statement does not assist in any way in ascertaining when the parties ceased to live together. However, there is a statement in the cross-examination of the respondent, from which it can be inferred that the appellant was saying; that at the date of the trial he and the respondent had ceased to live in the same house for a period of four years. This statement consists of the following answer given by the respondent to the appellant: “you...