Smith v Williams

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Bishop, J
• Judgment Date: 13 July 1978
• Neutral Citation: AG 1978 HC 27
• Docket Number: 159 of 1977
• Date: 13 July 1978

High Court

Bishop, J.

159 of 1977

Smith

and

Williams

Time H. Kendall for the plaintiff.

Gerald A. Watt for the defendant.

Damages - Unlawful assault and battery — Plaintiff struck on head by defendant — Quantum.

Bishop, J

1 Winston Smith was injured on the night of 14 ^th March 1977 when Wesley Williams struck him with a piece of plank in a panyard at Bolans. He was taken to Holberton Hospital where he was admitted and remained as a patient until 28 ^th March, 1977. A medical report admitted as evidence by consent revealed that Winston Smith was fully conscious, that neurological examination was normal, and that while there was no evidence of external injury other than acute tenderness on the right temporal region, an X-ray was requested. The following day Smith developed what was described as 7 ^th nerve paries of the left side but this cleared gradually, and there was satisfactory improvement.

2 On the 13 ^th December 1977, a claim was filed in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction for unlawful assault and battery by Wesley Williams. Particulars of injury and of special damage were set out. The claim was not admitted and an amended defence and counterclaim were filed on behalf of Wesley Williams, hereinafter called the defendant. As filed on the 3 ^rd July 1978 the Defence read:

• “1. The plaintiff (this should have been defendant) denies the facts as alleged in the plaintiff's Particulars of Claim and states that…. the plaintiff unlawfully attacked the defendant with a wooden plank, striking him on the right shoulder simultaneously one Title…. took up a stone and attempted to hurl the said stone at the defendant.

• 2. The defendant in order to stave off a further attack and to defend himself seized the said plank and struck the plaintiff.

• 3. The defendant does not admit to the alleged injuries loss or damage.”

3 It is not necessary to quote the counterclaim of the defendant.

4 In support of the case for Winston Smith (the plaintiff), I heard his testimony and that of Daniel Title; and as I shall show they were more reliable than Wesley Williams and Launchland Charles who testified in support of the defence and counter claim. Indeed Launchland Charles did not assist me with the facts and circumstances leading up to and including the assault and battery. He merely gave evidence of a statement made by Williams after the incident. Evidence of such a statement is not evidence of the truth of the contents, or of what actually occurred. At most it confirmed that the defendant said that he lost a chain and ring, which, in the view of the defendant, were expensive.

5 After reviewing the entire matter and considering what was urged by learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that the case for Wesley Williams cannot be given the credit which he would have me give it. It is significant that the defence disclosed by the cross examination of the plaintiff and his witness and the defence as filed. Alongside the defence as contained in the testimony of the defendant, differed materially and irreconcilably. I have already quoted the defence which was filed. As I understood that defence, Wesley Williams said that he was unlawfully struck on his right shoulder by Winston Smith and at the same time Daniel Title attempted to throw a stone at him; so, in order to prevent any further attack or assault he seized the plank with which Winston smith had struck him, and he struck Smith with it. The defence as put in the cross examination of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff struck the defendant with a plank on his right shoulder thereby bruising it, that Title attempted to hit the defendant with a stone and that when both the plaintiff and Title attacked the defendant with a stone then the defendant pulled the plank from Smith and struck him a single blow with it. There, as might be expected, the cross examination followed, by and large, the defence filed. It may be asked why did Williams not retreat from the open panyard and why did he find it necessary, having disarmed Smith, to use the plank on Smith if he did not have any other weapon? In any event the defendant urged that the took away the plank from Smith and hit Smith with it. I look now at the cross examination of Daniel Title. Title admitted readily, I thought, that he and the defendant had come to grips in a manner of fighting, but no blows were exchanged. Then it was put to him that smith hit Williams with a piece of plank, he took a stone and attempted to hit Williams with it, and that Williams then pulled the plank from Smith and hit him once with it. This was denied by Daniel Title though it coincided with the defence which was filed. What did Wesley Williams say in his testimony? He said that he and Title were wrestling and he saw Smith take up a piece of plank. He and Title were still holding each other and wrestling when he heard Smith say something and he received a blow on his right shoulder with the plank. He said that it was the plaintiff who hit him. Now what did the defendant do...