Snagg v Snagg

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Stoby, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 01 March 1963
• Neutral Citation: BB 1963 CA 3
• Docket Number: No. 101 of 1962
• Court: Court of Appeal (Barbados)
• Date: 01 March 1963

Court of Appeal

Stoby, C.J.; Field, J.; Hanschell, J.

No. 101 of 1962

Snagg

and

Snagg

Appearances:

Mr. A.K. Walcott for the appellant

Mr. H.A. Williams for the respondent

Family law - Husband and wife — Allegation of adultery by husband — Failure to give particulars

Stoby, C.J.

1 The appellant brought a complaint against her husband, the respondent, in which she alleged that he had deserted her, had been guilty of persistent cruelty and had wilfully neglected to provide reasonable maintenance for her or her infant child. She applied for an order under the Married Woman's (Separation and Maintenance) Act, 1950 s. 2.

2 During the appellant's cross-examination she was asked questions tending to show that she had committed adultery. When the respondent gave evidence he referred to incidents as indicating that his wife had committed adultery or at least conducted herself in such a way as to cause the husband to have a reasonable belief that she had committed adultery. The magistrate accepted the husband's evidence and dismissed the complaint. The wife's appeal is based on the ground that the husband had not given her particulars of her alleged adultery. Counsel for the appellant referred us to Duffield v. Duffield [1949] 1 All E.R. 1105. Counsel for the respondent conceded that particulars should have been given but we decided to reduce our judgment to writing in order that magistrates will become aware of the decision of this court.

3 Duffield v. Duffield decided that whenever a charge of adultery is going to be made, in whatever context, under the summary jurisdiction procedure, full and proper particulars should be given of the time, the place of adultery and the name of the alleged adulterer if known. This is necessary even where as in Duffield v. Duffield the wife is represented and does not ask for particulars.

4 The decision was followed and extended in Frampton v. Frampton [1951] 95 Sol Jo. 400, D.C. where the husband alleged that he, had cause to believe that his wife had committed adultery. Lord MERRIMAN said:

“I think it is a fair postscript to add that if the husband is alleging in the alternative that, even if his wife did not commit adultery, she did everything she could to persuade him that she had committed adultery, he should say that too.”

5 Although not necessary for the decision in this case we think it proper to express our view on another point, which was briefly argued....