Joseph v Arneaud

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Cherrie, J.
• Judgment Date: 29 April 1966
• Neutral Citation: TT 1966 HC 3
• Docket Number: No. 389 of 1956
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 29 April 1966

High Court

Cherrie, J.

No. 389 of 1956

Joseph

and

Arneaud

No Appearances:

Tort - Trespass to land — Owners of 2 contingent parcels of land — Whether any evidence of encroachment

Facts: Plaintiff brought action against the defendant for trespass to land. Defendant counter — claimed against the plaintiff for a like trespass. Plaintiff and defendant were respective owners of 2 contingent parcels of land.

Held: On the evidence, the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the court that the defendant, her servants or agents committed acts of trespass as alleged in the Statement of Claim or at all. Likewise the defendant has failed to satisfy the court regarding the trespass. In situations like these where the boundary was through the quarry face, it is insufficient for the claimant merely to say that there was an approachment, and then ask the court to award damages for the amount of 2,000 cubic yards of face stone alleged to have been wrongfully removed. Claim and counter claim dismissed with costs.

Cherrie, J.

1 This is an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for trespass to land, in reply to which the defendant counter-claimed against the plaintiff for a life trespass.

2 The plaintiff and the defendant are the respective owners of two contiguous parcels of land situate at Gonzales Place, Port of Spain; these lands are quarry lands, and quarrying operations have taken place on both parcels. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has been encroaching on her land, and vice versa.

3 Notwithstanding the number of survey plans which were put into evidence, it was at first quite difficult to understand the true nature of the dispute between the parties, a difficulty which was undoubtedly increased by the reluctance of counsel for the plaintiff to open his case fully.

4 There is in this case no real question as to where the common boundary lies; that has, in my view, been clearly established by no less than three surveys. The first of these three surveys was done by one Chimmings as a result of a dispute between the parties which ended in Court Action No. 334 of 1964, and both parties were then fully satisfied with the establishment of the boundary. Now that the old sore has been reopened, let us see what the grounds of complaint are:

5 The plaintiff was in the unenviable position of having to rely on two apparently contradictory plans, one by Gomez and one by Went. The Went Plan shows that the common boundary cuts across the face of the quarry – that is the locus of the dispute — while the Gomez Plan puts that boundary somewhat east of the Went boundary.

6 Counsel for the plaintiff was quite satisfied with this situation, because he says that as long as the boundary cuts across the quarry face the plaintiff must succeed, inasmuch as the plaintiff did no quarrying ‘in the spot’, and therefore any quarrying done there must have been done by the defendant.

7 I think that the witness we should start with is the former overseer, of the plaintiff's land, a man by the name of Egbert Lewis. Egbert Lewis said at one stage that the north-eastern area of Mrs. Joseph's land had been quarried, and later on that Mrs. Joseph did no quarrying in the north-eastern corner. He goes on further to say that quarrying was done some 40 or 50 feet...