Cox v Boyce

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: High Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Field, C.J.,Vaughan, P.J.
• Judgment Date: 29 January 1960
• Neutral Citation: BB 1960 HC 1
• Docket Number: Magisterial Appeal No. 86 of 1959
• Date: 29 January 1960

Supreme Court

Field, C.J.; Vaughan, P.J. (Ag.)

Magisterial Appeal No. 86 of 1959

Cox

and

Boyce

Appearances:

Mr. E. W. Barrow for the appellant.

Mr. G.B. Niles for the respondent.

Real property - Landlord and tenant — Rent — Distress for rent — Claim to goods distrained on by another party — Landlord and Tenant Act, 1897, ss. 21 and 25.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 The appellant Cox rented to one Allan Boyce, the father of the respondent, premises subsequently used as a shop situate in St. Michael at a rental of $4 per week. The respondent carried on business at the shop. The type of goods sold was general foodstuffs and liquor. On June 28, 1958, the appellant caused a distress to be levied on the goods in the shop to satisfy arrears of rent due to him by Allan Boyce. The respondent claimed the articles as his property and the magistrate allowed his claim. The claim as stated in the complaint is obviously brought under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act; 1897, but this is not stated in the complaint. The relevant sections under that Act whereby such a claim can be brought are ss. 20, 21 and 25. As the claimant to the goods was not holding himself out to be the tenant of Cox, the claim was not therefore under s. 20. Section 21 deals with a claim by a stranger while s. 25 deals with a claim by a lodger. In his reasons for allowing the claim the magistrate stated:

“the court held that the complainant was not a tenant or subtenant of t defendant, and found that the articles levied on were the property of the complainant.”

2 The finding of the magistrate that the complainant was not a tenant or subtenant is not a finding of fact. At least it is one of mixed fact and law. It is a conclusion at which the magistrate arrived without setting out any facts on which he so found. In these circumstances this court must look at the evidence and ascertain such facts as are relevant and apply the law to these facts.

3 From the evidence of the father and son it is clear that the father negotiated for the rent of the premises from Cox. Originally, these premises seem to have been more of a house than a shop, but they were subsequently converted into a shop as is not uncommon with this type of shopkeeper. The business was carried on by the son. The goods were bought by him. The liquor licence was in his name. He was put in exclusive possession of the premises by his father, the tenant of Cox. In his evidence the son stated:

“On June 26, 1958, I was carrying on business … in a shop rented by my father, Allan Boyce, from Lawrence Cox, the owner of the house. The business was my business.”

...