Zephrin v Mathurin

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Davis, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 07 May 1971
• Neutral Citation: LC 1971 CA 10
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 07 May 1971
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1971

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J.; Lewis, J.A.; Davis, J.A. (Ag.)

Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1971

Zephrin

and

Mathurin

Appearances:

V. Cooper for the appellant.

L. A. Williams for the respondent.

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Selling goods above price fixed by law

Facts: This was an appeal from a conviction under section 5(1)(a) of the Distribution and Price of Goods Act 1967. The issue was whether the magistrate's decision was wrong

Held: The magistrate's reason for the decision were correct in law. Appeal dismissed.

Davis, J.A.

1 This is an appeal from a conviction by the learned magistrate, First District Court, dated the 15th day of April, 1971. The appellant was charged under section 5 (1) (a) of the Distribution and Price of Goods Act No. 23 of 1967, for that he, on the 9th day of December, 1970 did sell a sandwich loaf above the maximum price fixed by law.

2 The facts are, briefly, that on the 9th day of December, 1969, two Price Control Inspectors went to the business premises of the appellant known as Zephrin's Bakery and told the appellant that they were conducting a survey of the Bakery and would like his assistance. They began weighing the bread which was advertised for sale at the time and found that 3 sandwich loaves weighed 2 lbs, 2 ¹/₂ oz, each but were advertised as sandwich loaves at the price of 80 cents.

3 The law fixes the price of such loaves at 2 cents per oz. The appellant was then told he would be prosecuted,

4 At the end of the case for the prosecution learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a prima facie case had not been made out against his client, but this submission was overruled by the learned magistrate. When called upon to lead his defence, learned counsel for the appellant elected not to offer any evidence in defence but relied on his submission which he had made at the end of the case for the prosecution.

5 In this court, learned counsel for the appellant has repeated the submission which he made before the learned magistrate.

6 We have looked at the magistrate's reasons for the decision and find therein perfect answers in law to the points raised by learned counsel for the appellant. In the view of this court, all the prosecution had to do was to prove that the bread was offered for sale and that the loaf did not comply with the weight necessary to approximate to the price asked.

7 Now, if the respondent was at the material date...