Wai v A.A. Hodgkinson Ltd

JurisdictionCaribbean States
CourtFederal Supreme Court (West Indies)
JudgeLewis, J.A.
Judgment Date08 Oct 1959
Docket NumberAppellate Jurisdiction. Civil No. 4 of 1959

Federal Supreme Court

Hallinan, C.J., Wylie, J.A.; Lewis JJ.A.

Appellate Jurisdiction. Civil No. 4 of 1959

A.A. Hodgkinson Ltd

Mr. A.N.R. Robinson, instructed by Messrs. M. Hamel Smith & Co. for the plaintiff-appellant

Mr. L.A. Seemungal, instructed by Messrs. G.R. Annisette & Co. for the defendant-respondent

Practice and Procedure - Evidence — Appeal — Findings of facts — whether findings of trial judge against the weight of evidence.


Plaintiff claimed that she had been assaulted and unlawfully detained by the defendants. Claim dismissed. Appealed on the ground that decision was against weight of evidence.


There is nothing in the evidence referred to by plaintiff's counsel to justify Court in upsetting the findings of fact of the trial judge. Appealed dismissed with costs.


In this case the plaintiff-appellant alleged that when she was passing down the street in the vicinity of the defendant-respondent's store, two of the defendant-respondent's employees Latiff and Awai, came out and that they assaulted and unlawfully detained her. Although the statement of claim suggests that she was also claiming that she had been defamed by false allegation of having stolen some plastic from the defendant's store, that issue was not agitated at the trial and is not now the subject of this appeal. The learned trial judge found that there had been no assault on the plaintiff –appellant and that she had not been falsely imprisoned. The only ground of appeal argued before us is that the decision was against the weight of evidence. The plaintiff-appellant had alleged that one of the defendant's employees had grabbed a piece of plastic from her but it has not been agrued on this appeal that the mere grabbing of cloth which had taken place would have been an assault.


Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has directed our attention mainly to three points in the evidence which he considers are strongly in favor of the plaintiff-appellant. Firstly, the evidence of the policeman, Brathwaite, who, after the plaintiff-appellant had gone to the police station, was sent to investigate the matter at the defendant-respondent's store. In his evidence, which was given some seven years after the incident, the subject matter of the case, took place, Brathwaite stated that the plaintiff-appellant, while at the store during his enquiries, had said that she had come into the store with a piece of cloth over her arm to buy...

To continue reading

Request your trial