Mavis Christian Plaintiff/Appellant v Charles Martin Defendant/Respondent [ECSC]

JurisdictionCaribbean States
CourtEastern Caribbean Supreme Court
JudgeGORDON, J.A, ., Chief Justice
Judgment Date23 Oct 1970
Neutral Citation[1970] ECSC J1023-1
Docket NumberMagistrate's Civil Appeal
[1970] ECSC J1023-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable the Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice Gordon

The Honourable Mr. Justice P. Cecil Lewis

Magistrate's Civil Appeal

No.6 of 1970

Between:
Mavis Christian
Plaintiff/Appellant
and
Charles Martin
Defendant/Respondent

Miss F.M. Lake for Appellant

F.A. Clarke for Respondent

1

GORDON, J.A .
2

In these two appeals which were heard together, the plaintiff/appellant has appealed from two judgments entered in favour of the defendant/respondent by the learned magistrate District A.

3

The appeals arise out of the following circumstances: the appellant was engaged by the respondent as a domestic servant sometime in the first week of September, 1969, at $15.00 per week according to her, and according to him at $12.00 per week for a four-day week. According to the appellant she was dismissed at the end of the second week. She was not paid her wages for that week, nor was she allowed to take certain belongings of hers which comprised –

a

bag valued at

…….

8.50

a

dress valued at

…….

10.00

l

pair shoes at

…….

5.50

l

watch at

…….

25.00

$49.00

4

and a title deed.

5

The respondent admitted having dismissed the appellant because, as he said, she had not been performing her duties satisfactorily. He however denied owing her any wages, and alleged that he had been given the title deed as security for a loan of $100,00 which he had made to the appellant.

6

In the two separate claims which the appellant brought against the respondent, the first being a claim for $15,00 being

7

one week's wages and costs, and the second for the return of certain goods and a title deed or their value and costs. judgment was entered for the respondent by the trial magistrate.

8

In his reasons for his judgment the learned trial magistrate in dealing with the contract of employment stated thus— "I am satisfied that neither party is disclosing the real nature of the arrangement", and he went on to comment on what, in his view, the nature of that arrangement was. In the course of his speculation he however failed to make any finding on the important issue as to what was the agreed amount of wages per week, and whether the appellant was or was not paid such wages by the respondent. The result of this failure of the trial magistrate to make any proper finding on this aspect of the case must be that the appeal in so far as the claim for wages is...

To continue reading

Request your trial