& February, 195-.| THE LEEWARD ISLANDS GAZETTE. 19
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE WINDWARD ISLANDS AND LEEWARD ISLANDS
(ANTIGUA CIROUIT)

Civil Jurisdiction.
Suit No. 33 of 1954.

Between:
ROBERT TOScH Plainuff
and
LESLIE ALFRED THOMPSON Defendant.
Before: DATE J.

E. E. HaRNEY and J. R. Henry for Plaintiff.

C. E. FRANCIS for Defendant.

JUDGMENT.

This is an action in detinue in which numerous questions have been raised, some of them quite insubstan-
tial. The simplest course in the circumstances might be to begin my judgment by setting out the material pleadings.
They are as follows:—

Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff is the tenant of premises at 37, St. Mary’s Street in the City of Saint John in the Island of
Antigua. The defendant is the owner of the said premises and the landlord of the plaintiff.

From the 5th day of July, 1954, the defendant has been in possession of the said premises but the
plaintiff has been entitled to possession.

On the 7th day of July, 1954, and on several occasions follewing, the plaintiff has demanded possession
of the said premises and his goods and chattels therein but the defendant has refused to deliver them up. In
particular, on the 3rd day of August, 1954, the plaintiff demanded possession of the said premises and his chattels
and the defendant has not delivered them up.

The plaintiff claims a return of his goods and chattels, viz.,

(1) Display case and compressor
(2) 1 H.P. Compressor

3) 1 Blower—Condenser Unit
) 2 Sets Butcher Cutlery

) 1 Meat Grinder

) 2 Moro Wood Cutting Tables
) 1 Walk-in Refrigerator Unit and Accessories
) 1 Adding Machine

) 1 Food Safe

(10) Books, papers etc.

(11) Sundry Domestic articles

or their value. The plaintiff claims damages for their detention.

me A aN

Defence.
The defendant LESLIE ALFRED THOMPSON for his defence herein:

1. From the L5th day of February, 1954, and up to the present time the plaintiff became the defendant’s
tenant of the premises at 37 St. Mary’s Street, in the City of Saint John, in the Island of Antigua, at a monthly
rental of Sixty dollars ($60 00),

2. The defendant denies the allegations in the unnumbered paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Statement of Claim.

3. Up until 3lst July, 1954, the plaintiff had not paid any rents in respect of the said premises which
arrears then amounted to $3¢0.00,

4, On Sunday 4th July, 1954, all the plaintiff's goods and fixtures were being removed from the premises
in the absence of the plaintiff and on the instance of the plaintiff and his Solicitor the keys of the premises were
voluntarily handed over to the defendant’s Solicitor by the plaintiff’s Solicitor.

5. Thereafter the plaintiff by his servants and agents had access to the premises and his goods and chattels
at all times on request to the defendant or his Solicitor.

6. The defendant claims that at all material times he had a lien on the goods for which the defendant was
and is entitled for rentals in respect of the said premises due to him by the plaintiff.

7. On or about 21st July, 1954, the defendant and his Solicitor visited the plaintiff in another place, They
discussed the tenancy and the plaintiff promised to inform the defendant concerning the continuance of the
tenancy after a few days.

8. By letter dated 30th July, 1954, the plaintiff forwarded the defendant a cheque for $360.00 in respect
of rentals of the said premises. The plaintiff informed defendant that the plaintiff’s Solicitor had full permission
to dispose of his goods and to use the proceeds to liquidate his debts.