22 December, 1955. ] THE LEEWARD ISLANDS GAZETTE. 223

sum of $300 without stating the method of computation. He however indicated that he had taken all
things into consideration save that “this does not take into account any refund by Government of the
excise duty paid on the contaminated rum still in the plaintiff’s possession. If such duty or any portion
of it is recoverable at this late date, it will be for the plaintiff’s benefit. The defendant must pay one
half of the plaintiff's costs in these proceedings ”’.

The following are the grounds of appeal:—

1. The learned Judge misdirected himself on the question of damages by awarding a lump
sum of $300.00 notwithstanding that by its defence the defendant-respondent admitted a liability to the
plaintiff-appellant in a sum of $432.62 and had deposited said sum into Court. Said lump sum of
$300.00 does not detail what items of damage are therein included.

2. The learned judge misdirected himself by omitting to award to the plaintiff-appellant a
sum of $208.35 paid by the plaintiff-appellant as excise tax on the rum purchased by him and this
notwithstanding that its liability for the said sum of $208.35 was admitted by the defendant-respondent
in the defence.

3. That the learned judge erred in admitting the report of Mr. Warren the Chemist except for
the purpose of identification and not for the purpose of admission of its contents as binding as to the
opinions therein stated without giving the plaintiff-appellant’s Solicitor the opportunity of cross-examining
Mr. Warren.

4, That the learned judge was wrong in law in exercising his discretion as to costs by
awarding to the plaintiff-appellant only one-half of his taxed costs.

5. That the judgment of the learned judge was wrong and ought to be modified as herein
requested and if this Court shall decide to modify said judgment it permit the evidence of experts to be
adduced by both parties in coming to its decision or in the alternative that a new trial be ordered with
costs of this appeal to be paid to the plaintiff-appellant. _

On behalf of the appellant the argument before us was confined to the quantum of damages and
the costs, the other points raised in the grounds of appeal being abandoned.

Where a wrongful act has been followed by damage which is the direct consequence of the
wrong the extent of the damage can often be considerably lessened by well advised action, It is settled
law that the plaintiff is under a duty to take all reasonable steps to mitigate loss consequent on the
defendant’s wrongdving and he cannot recover compensation for any part of the damage which is due to
his neglect to take such steps.

It is manifest that these principles were well in the mind of the Judge in his consideration of
the quantum of damages, but it is beyond dispute that he excluded from his assessment the sum of
$208.85 the amount of duty paid by the appellant. Before us counsel for the appellant made no
complaint as to the assessment of $300.00, the burden of his contention being that there should have
been an additional award of the $208.35 paid as excise duty irrespective of whether it is or is not now
recoverable. There is no evidence whatever to show that the sum was or is now recoverable, but if it
be, it will enure for the respondents’ benefit. We are therefore of opinion that this sum should have
‘been included in the damages awarded.

The appeal succeeds and the judgment varied. There will be judgment for the appellant in the
sum of $508.35, and in the circumstances the appellant is entitled to his costs here and in the Court
‘below.

J. Marnizu PEREZ,
Chief Justice, Trinidad & Tobago.

E. A. CoLtityMoreE,
Chief Justice, Barbados.

DonaLp JACKSON,
Chief Justice, Windward Is!ands
and Leeward Islands.

412th December, 1935.