Williams v Luke

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Bishop J.
• Judgment Date: 29 April 1976
• Neutral Citation: AG 1976 HC 1
• Docket Number: No. 121 of 1974
• Date: 29 April 1976

High Court

Bishop, J.

No. 121 of 1974

Williams

and

Luke

Real property - Title - Whether land purchased belonged to plaintiff — Whether structure on land was a fixture or chattel — Degree of annexation of structure as determininig factor — Whether structure exclusive property of the deceased.

Bishop J.

1 Alford Williams, the plaintiff, seeks from this court a declaration “that the dwelling house situate at Dickensonbay Street in the City of Saint John's and in which Millicent Williams lived at the date of her death does not from part of her estate.” He has also asked for “such further or other relief as the nature of the case may required.”

2 This case is the consequent of an unfortunate family dispute that began towards the latter part of the year 1973. It would seem that the principal parties, though not the only parties, were the plaintiff and his sister Edith Rawlins (nee Williams), two of the children of Millicent Williams; and the dispute sprung from the will dated 13 ^th September, 1973 in which Keithroy (or Keathroy) Luke, the defendant, was named as sole executor.

3 The will of Millicent Williams included the following disposition: “I bequest unto my great daughter Francine D. Luke the wooden house in which I live at DickensonbBay Street…. with contents.”

4 On the 11 ^th March, 1974 the High Court of Justice granted probate of the said will of 13 ^th September, 1973, to Keathroy Luke, the sole executor named therein.

5 Francine D. Luke referred to in the will and who is the grand daughter of Edith Rawlins and also of the executor, is also the daughter of the plaintiff's niece.

6 In support of the Statement of Claim the plaintiff and his cousin Denfield Hurst testified; the defendant and Edith Rawlins did so in defence. Having made a close analysis of these person and their testimony, I think it is appropriate to observe (1) I have borne in mind that the nature of the case must have appreciably influenced probability of the witness being particularly accurate and clear throughout, as might be the situation where strict business matters or dealing between strangers are concerned. (2) my assessment of these four persons will, I think, be helpful in understanding my findings of fact; and for this reason I shall indicate such assessment.

7 Alford Williams seemed to me to be willing to relate the truth, though he was not unmindful of his interest in the outcome of the case. In his hope for success he probably exaggerated the total extent of his financial assistance; and in some of his replies under cross examination he sacrificed being clear for the attempt at being clever. These last mentioned views not withstanding, I preferred his testimony to that his sister Edith Rawlins.

8 Denfield Hurst appeared keen to assist the court in reaching the truth moreso than to assist the plaintiff in succeeding with his assertions.

9 Keithroy Luke also seemed anxious to obey the oath which he took; but it ought also to be stated here that his testimony was not controversial and it really remained undisputed.

10 Edith Rawlins seemed to me to be willing to relate the truth only when it did not conflict with what she clearly considered to be primarily if not exclusively her own interest. Particularly under cross examination she tried to avoid answering some of the questions and preferred to supply facts and circumstances which she regarded as being detrimental to the plaintiff and damaging to his case. Generally, she appeared at ease when allowed to relate what, in my view, she had come to court to relate, though uncomfortable when some of the more pertinent facts were sought. I think it is also fair to state here that there were facts that were nevertheless given by her, and I have evaluated such facts in that light.

11 Bearing in mind the standard of proof required in civil cases the following facts are probably the truth.

12 In the year 1939 Millicent Williams and four children (2 sons and 2 daughters), including the plaintiff and Edith Rawlins, lived at Conney Warren Alley, St. John's in two small chattel houses one of which certainly belonged to her and the other had been owned by her mother.

13 Between 1940 and 1945 the plaintiff worked at the United States Army Base in this State. He was the only one of the five persons living at Conney Warren Alley who was in steady and continuous employment. His mother occasionally washed clothes for some of the officers, but it was essentially the earnings of the plaintiff which supported the five members the family then living at Conney Warren Alley. For a short time - probably about six weeks - Edith Rawlins worked as a baby sitter for an officer at the Base; this job was secured for her by her brother the plaintiff.

14 In November 1945, Alford Williams migrated to the United States of America where, after two weeks, he secured a job; and from then he has always been employed. From the time he secured a job, Alford Williams bought items of clothing and other merchandise which he sent to his mother here in Antigua. She (sometimes with the help of her two daughters) sold the things locally thus earning money with which to support herself and her daughters. It would seem too that Millicent Williams was able to save some money from the proceeds of the sales and from cash remittances...