Christopher v Christopher et Al

• Jurisdiction: British Virgin Islands
• Court: High Court (British Virgin Islands)
• Judge: Hewlett, J.
• Judgment Date: 25 May 1977
• Neutral Citation: VG 1977 HC 5
• Docket Number: No. 70 of 1976
• Date: 25 May 1977

High Court

Hewlett, J

No. 70 of 1976

Christopher

and

Christopher et al

Appearances:

Miss Constance V. Mitcham for the applicant

Mr. E.A.C. Hewlett for the respondents

Trespass - Trespass to goods — Whether respondent damaged the applicant's furniture

Facts: The applicant alleged that the respondent on taking some furniture from his premises without permission took out some of her furniture and damaged other pieces.

Held: The applicant and her witness were not witnesses of truth. Application dismissed.

Hewlett, J.

1 This is an application for compensation for the loss of and damage to certain items of furniture and fittings of the Sea View Restaurant bought by the applicant at public auction on the 12th March 1977 under an Order for Sale made by the court on the 10th February 1977. The applicant is the sister of the respondents and in the Order for Sale the second respondent was authorised to remove and retain as her separate property certain specific items of furniture and equipment. This application alleges that the second respondent on the 15th March 1977 removed and damaged other items of furniture and equipment over and above those allotted to her by the court. The respondents deny this.

2 The loss and damage were itemised in three schedules contained in the applicant's affidavit of the 30th March, 1977 and there are three other affidavits in support of the claim. One such affidavit is from Roosevelt Harrigan, whose wife, Rubena Harrigan, is a sister of the parties. She, it will be observed, is not a party; apparently, there never was an issue between the applicant and herself. She has been referred to throughout these proceedings as an “interested party”, but she has never taken an active part, although there was always her solicitor present to watch her interest. Roosevelt Harrigan works for the applicant and is always around her. His testimony lists several items as having been removed and taken away by the second respondent which are not included in his affidavit to that effect and it cannot be that he deliberately omitted them as the items to which she was entitled by order of the court because he has expressly denied that he knew of the court order to that effect. Moreover, in his affidavit, he says that the items were carried away in a land rover whereas in his testimony he speaks of a truck being employed for that purpose. Again, in his testimony he says that the truck took the goods to the second...