Albert St.Croix Appellant v May Solomon Respondent [ECSC]

CourtEastern Caribbean Supreme Court
Docket NumberMiscellaneous Appeal No.1 of 1970
Judgment Date11 Apr 1970
JurisdictionCaribbean States
Neutral Citation[1970] ECSC J0411-1
[1970] ECSC J0411-1



The Honourable the Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice Cecil Lewis

The Honourable Mr. Justice St.Bernard (Ag.)

Miscellaneous Appeal No.1 of 1970

Albert St.Croix
May Solomon

V.A. Cooper for appellant

Respondent in person

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by—

This is an appeal against an order of the magistrate of the First District in St. Lucia dated January 10th, 1970, adjudging the appellant to be the putative father of a child named Brenda born to the respondent on February 28th 1967. By this order the appellant was also directed to pay the respondent two dollars a week for Brenda's maintenance until she attained the age of sixteen years. The appellant was dissatisfied with the magistrate's adjudication and has appealed therefrom on the following grounds:

"(1) That no sufficient evidence of maintenance was given of the particular child, and the evidence showed that the appellant maintained other children with the respondent and used to go there to see them.

(2) That the verdict is entirely against the weight of the evidence."


The substantial argument put forward on the appellant's behalf however, was that there was no corroboration of the respondent's story in a material particular as required by law.


The evidence disclosed that the parties lived together as man and wife for a period of about eighteen years, during which time four children were born to the respondent, of whom the appellant is admittedly the father. At some date, not precisely stated in the evidence, the parties ceased to live together in the same house.


When the complaint was heard on January 10th 1970, the respondent stated that the separation took place in the "year before last". She would thus appear to be referring to the year 1968. On the other hand, the appellant said in his evidence that he had no connection with the respondent after Bryan, one of the children was born, but as the date of Bryan's birth was nowhere stated in the evidence, this statement does not assist in any way in ascertaining when the parties ceased to live together. However, there is a statement in the cross-examination of the respondent, from which it can be inferred that the appellant was saying that at the date of the trial he and the respondent had ceased to live in the same house for a period of four years. This statement consists of the following answer...

To continue reading

Request your trial