Thomas v Paul

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Bishop, J.
• Judgment Date: 28 March 1980
• Neutral Citation: AG 1980 HC 7
• Docket Number: 11 of 1980
• Date: 28 March 1980

High Court

Bishop, J.

11 of 1980

Thomas

and

Paul

Appearances:

Colvin W. Sobers for the plaintiff.

Sydney P. Christian for the defendant.

Damages - Conversion — Plaintiff claimed damages for unlawful conversion of a refrigerator — Allegations proved on a balance of probabilities — Judgment for plaintiff for $1,000 E.C. with costs.

Bishop, J.

1 Olive Thomas, of St. Johnston's Village, claims damages from her step father Montgomery Paul, of Jennings Village, for unlawful conversion of a refrigerator.

2 In her testimony the plaintiff stated that in the year 1973 she bought a general electric refrigerator in the island of St. Croix for $500.00 U.S. currency, and that along with other household items, including a dinette set, she bought it to Antigua. Her sister who had been living at her — the plaintiff's — house in St. Johnston's Village, got her own home and so the plaintiff rented the house unfurnished; and for this reason she asked her mother, in the presence of her step father, to keep the refrigerator and other household items at their home in Jennings Village. It is undisputed that the refrigerator was installed and used at the house occupied by the defendant and his wife Mary Paul. The plaintiff continued to live in St. Croix and make periodic visits to Antigua until 1976, when she came to live in Antigua at her own house in St. Johnston's Village. The refrigerator remained at the house at Jennings Village, where it continued in use by the plaintiff's mother and step father until the former's death in June last year.

3 Following the death of his wife, the defendant received domestic assistance from the plaintiff. She washed his clothes for him and sold milk for him. In October 1979 there was an unfortunate incident out of which, I think it is fair to observe, this action sprang. Whereas the defendant seemed to continue to use the refrigerator after his wife's death with the concurrence of the plaintiff, after the latter heard of what she regarded as “false scandal” spread by the defendant about herself and her sister, she went to the defendant and advised him that she was not coming back to his house and that she wanted to be allowed to remove her belongings from the house.

4 It is undisputed that she was allowed to remove a number of household items without any molestation; but a dispute arose over the same refrigerator which had been installed in the house in 1973. Montgomery Paul refused...