Linton v Grant

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Hanschell, J.,Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 19 June 1970
• Date: 19 June 1970
• Court: Divisional Court (Barbados)

Divisional Court

Hanschell, J.; Williams, J.

Linton

and

Grant

Appearances:

Mr. G. Sargeant for the appellant.

Mr. H.B. St. John, Q.C., for the respondent.

Family Law - Children — Affiliation

Facts: Whether the affiliation order made by the magistrate against the appellant was invalid in view of the fact that it did not recite that there was evidence satisfactorily corroborating the evidence of the complainant

Held: That the magistrate in his reasons found that the evidence of the complainant was corroborated in a material particular and there was ample testimony to support such a finding.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 The Magistrate at District “A” made an order adjudging the appellant to be the father of the illegitimate child of the respondent and ordering him to pay $4.00 a week towards the support of the child. The appellant appealed and when the matter came on for hearing his counsel took the point that the order of the magistrate was bad in that it did not recite certain matters. In fact there was no formal order sent up to this court and counsel was referring to the notes made by magistrate at the hearing. We accordingly remitted the case to the magistrate for the formal order to be prepared and attached to the record.

2 When the matter again came on for hearing counsel for the appellant made the same point on the formal order which was now attached to the record. He referred to Chislett's Affiliation Proceedings as showing the proper ingredients of an affiliation order and pointed out that the order did not recite that there was “other evidence satisfactorily corroborating the evidence of the complainant in a material particular” or that the magistrate “heard the evidence tendered by or on behalf of the defendant and was satisfied as to the truth of the complaint.” He also referred to The Queen v. Read 112 E.R. 1346 for the proposition that an order for the maintenance of an illegitimate child was bad if the words “in some material particular” were not included. He further pointed out that the order did not state whether it was to be retrospective or was to be operative from the date on which it was made. Counsel for the respondent referred to s. 152(2)(b) of the Magistrates' Jurisdiction and Procedure Act, 1956 No. 57 and submitted that the court could and should amend the order. The provision reads as follows:

• (2) In giving judgment, the Supreme Court may-…

  • (b) If any omission or mistake is...