Romick Martin Defendant/Appellant v Keturah Phillip Plaintiff/Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Court of Appeal (Antigua and Barbuda)
• Judge: ST. BERNARD, J. A. (Ag.),Acting Chief Justice
• Judgment Date: 16 June 1970
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1970] ECSC J0616-1
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1970
• Date: 16 June 1970

[1970] ECSC J0616-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable the Acting Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice P. Cecil Lewis

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard (Acting)

Magistrate's Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1970

Between:

Romick Martin

Defendant/Appellant

and

Keturah Phillip

Plaintiff/Respondent

M. George for Appellant

G. Watt for Respondent

ST. BERNARD, J. A. (Ag.)

1 The appellant who was the owner of a heifer a little over one year old, entered into a contract with the respondent for the care of the said heifer under what was termed the "half-the-increase" basis. According to the respondent the heifer was delivered to him on the 1st February, 1968, and was valued at two hundred dollars. On this value both the respondent and the appellant agree, but as to the date of delivery they are at variance. The respondent places the date on the 1st February, 1968, while the appellant places it some time in July, 1968.

2 The respondent cared the animal until the 16th March, 1969. At that time it was three months in calf. During the period he kept the cow he said he cared it well, buying materials for wash, and washing it twice a month. He said it was full-grown at the end of two years, and a full-grown animal of that type was worth about four hundred dollars. Some time in early March, 1969, the cow pulled him down, and as a result he went to the appellant and told her that she should get someone to value the cow as he was unable to keep it much longer. On the 16th March, 1969, he went to look after the cow but found it was missing. The appellant had taken away the cow without his knowledge and sold it for two hundred and forty dollars. The respondent denied that he had appointed the 16th March, 1969, the day for valuation of the cow.

3 Joseph Gillian, a butcher of thirty-six years standing, stated that he did not see the cow but assuming a cow was properly cared, at the end of two years to two and a half years it would be worth about four hundred to five hundred dollars, and at three years it would be worth five hundred dollars.

4 The appellant stated that on the 8th March, 1969, she met the respondent and he told her he would not keep the cow any longer. As a result she sent her brother to him and from what her brother told her she went on the 16th March, 1969, with two men—one to value and one to buy the cow. She sola it for two hundred and forty dollars.

5 There are three grounds of appeal, namely—

• (a) that illegal evidence was admitted by the court and that there was not sufficient legal evidence to sustain the decision...