222 THE LEEWARD ISLANDS GAZETTE. [22 December, 1955.

ANTIGUA
IN THE WEST INDIAN COURT OF APPEAL

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE WINDWARD ISLANDS
AND LEEWARD ISLANDS.
Betiween:
MavuRIcE JEROME MICHAEL
doing business as Mrssrs.
Anxtuony Micuaer & Sons
Plaintitj- Appellant
and

AnNTIGUA DISTILLERY LIMITED,

A DOMESTIC CORPORATION HAVING

ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN THE

City or Saint Joun, ANTIGUA.
Dejfendants- Respondents

19538. No. 1—-ANTIGUA

Before:—
Maruizu Prrez, C.J., Trinidad and Tobayo
CottymorE, «© C.J., Barbados
JACKSON, C.J., Windward Islands and Leeward Islands

1955. December 7, 12.

S. T. Curistian fur the appellant
J. Rowan Henry for the respondents

JUDGMENT.

The appellant is a merchant trading in the naine of Anthony Michael & Sons and the respondent
Company are manufacturers of rum and have for some time been selling that commodity over proof to
the appellant to be retailed after being mixed and cured.

On the 27th March 1951 the appellant’s agent bought from the respondents two casks of
white rum containing 108.52 proof gallons at a price of $175.63 and paid excise duty thereon in the
sum of $208.35. This ram was mixed and placed in the appellant’s vats under the skilled supervision
of his agents, there to remain for some time prior to bottling. Two days after the sale us a result of
information received the appellant’s agent took a sample of this rum and on testing it found that it con-
tained diesel oil and was unfit for human consumption.

On the 29th March, 1951, the respondents’ secretary on receiving a complaint from the
appellant’s agent went to the uppellant’s premises; he offered to take back the rum, give a cheque for its
price inclusive of the duty paid; he was told to return the next day; on that day the 30th March, 1951,
at an interview between the appellant’s solicitor, appellant’s agent and the respondents’ secretary, it was
claimed that the rum had contaminated the vats; later that day the respondents wrote to the appellant
offering to replace the rum in the same proof gallonage duty paid and to pay reasonable costs for cleaning
and recharring the vats or to give him a cheque for $381.98, the cost of the rum and duty and to pay a
reasonable price for the vats, subject to his handing them over to the respondents and in any case requir-
ing the delivery to them of the contaminated ram. This offer was declined.

The relationship between the parties at this time and for some time prior thereto was strained
owing as it appeared to the learned Judge “ to a previous campaign by the plaintiff (appellant) to put an
imported rum on the local market.’ Further the appellant seems to have suspected that it was not by
mere chance that he and one other merchant, who were not shareholders in the respondent Company, were
the sole dealers in liquor supplied with this contarainated rum. This suspicion was found to be unjustified.

Several letters followed and protracted negotiations ensued without any agreement being reached
as to the amount, of the respondents’ ability. On the 27th June 1951 the appellant filed a writ claiming
damages for breach of contract, including costs of replacement of two vats contaminated $300 and a
further $300 for loss and use of the said vats until replaced. The respondents in their defence admitted
liability in the following terms:— “to the extent of $432.62 being the cost rum duty paid, the cost
of bitters, the porterage charges and the time lost for such cleansing (3 days) plus one week’s compensa-
tion and will cleanse and transport the vats at their own expense.” This amount $482.62 was paid into
Court on 14th August 1951.

The case was heard on the 15th and 16th of June 1953 and judgment given on the Lst October
in that year. At that time the contaminated rum was still in the vats and it was admitted that the longer
the rum remained therein the greater would be the damage. The learned Judge gave judgment in the