• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Main
 Antigua, Statutory Rules and Orders,...
 Antigua, Statutory Rules and Orders,...
 Antigua, Statutory Rules and Orders,...
 Montserrat, Statutory Rules and...
 Virgin Islands, Statutory Rules...
 Virgin Islands, Statutory Rules...














Group Title: Antigua, Montserrat and Virgin Islands gazette.
Title: The Antigua, Montserrat and Virgin Islands gazette
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076853/00040
 Material Information
Title: The Antigua, Montserrat and Virgin Islands gazette
Physical Description: 12 v. : ; 25-35 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Antigua
Montserrat
British Virgin Islands
Publisher: Govt. Printer.
Place of Publication: St. John's? Antigua
Frequency: weekly
completely irregular
 Subjects
Subject: Law -- Periodicals -- Antigua and Barbuda   ( lcsh )
Law -- Periodicals -- Montserrat   ( lcsh )
Law -- Periodicals -- British Virgin Islands   ( lcsh )
Politics and government -- Periodicals -- Antigua and Barbuda   ( lcsh )
Politics and government -- Periodicals -- Montserrat   ( lcsh )
Politics and government -- Periodicals -- British Virgin Islands   ( lcsh )
Genre: federal government publication   ( marcgt )
legislation   ( marcgt )
periodical   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Dates or Sequential Designation: v. 1-12, no. 18; July 5, 1956-Mar. 30, 1967.
General Note: Includes supplements consisting of bills, ordinances, statutory rules & orders, etc.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076853
Volume ID: VID00040
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 001667609
oclc - 17270322
notis - AHX9420
lccn - 58045856
 Related Items
Preceded by: Leeward Islands gazette
Succeeded by: Antigua official gazette
Succeeded by: Montserrat official gazette
Succeeded by: Virgin Islands official gazette

Table of Contents
    Main
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
    Antigua, Statutory Rules and Orders, no. 52 of 1956: Pares Village Extension Scheme
        Page A-1
        Page A-2
        Page A-3
        Page A-4
        Page A-5
        Page A-6
        Page A-7
    Antigua, Statutory Rules and Orders, no. 5 of 1957: Sugar Export Cess (Amendment) Regulations, 1957
        Page B-1
    Antigua, Statutory Rules and Orders, no. 6 of 1957: Direction of the Governor in Council given on February 5, 1957, pursuant to the provisions of section 4
        Page C-1
        Page C-2
    Montserrat, Statutory Rules and Orders, no. 2 of 1957: Aerodromes (Shooting of Animals) Regulations, 1957
        Page D-1
        Page D-2
    Virgin Islands, Statutory Rules and Orders, no. 7 of 1957: Proclamation dated February 20, 1957, bringing into operation the Land Acquisition Ordinance, 1957
        Page E-1
    Virgin Islands, Statutory Rules and Orders, no. 7A of 1957: Proclamation dated February 22, 1957, bringing into operation the Firearms Ordinance, 1956
        Page F-1
Full Text






THE

ANTIGUA, MXONTSERRAT
AND

VIRGIN ISLANDS GAZETTE.

Published by authority.


THURSDAY, 7rrH MARCH, 1957.


No. 11.


Notices.

It is notified for general informa-
tion that, pending the issue of Her
Majesty's Exequatur, Signor Luciano
Olivieri has been accorded provisional
recognition as Consul of Italy at
Caracas, Venezuela, with jurisdiction
ever the territories of Barbados,
British Guiana, Trinidad, and the
Leeward and Windward Islands.
Chief Secretary's Office,
Anttgua.
27th February, 1957.
Ref. No. 19/00010.

NATURALIZATION.
A Certificate of Naturalisation
No. 2 of 1957 dated the 25th January,
1957, has been granted to Mr. Peter
Williams Creighton known as Peter
Alexander Williams of St. Mary's Streer,
St. John's, Antigua, under the British
Nationality Act, 1948.
Chief Secretary's Ofice,
Leeward Islands,
Antigua,
27th February, 1957.
Ref. No. 55/00029.

CONFIRMATION OF ORDINANCES

No. 27.
The Secretary of State of the
Colonies has informed the Governor
that the power of disallowance will
not be exercised in respect of the
undermentioned Ordinances:-
Antigua.
No. 31 of 1956, The Development
(Cornmeal Industry) Local Loan Ordi-
nance, 1956 ".
Ref. No. 47/00463..
No. 33 of 1956, "The Workmen's
Compensation (Amendment) Ordi-
nance, 1956".
Ref. No. 47/00358- I.

No. 35 of 1956, "The Appropria-
tion (1957) Ordinance, 1956".
Ref. No. 47/00087.
The Secretariat,
Antigua.
1st March, 1957.
Ref. No. 47/00358-II.


3 ^p-, 7.f4r7

4 ( r.


No. 28.

The Governor has this day been
pleased to assent to the under-
mentioned Ordinance:-
Montserrat.
No. 7 of 1957, "The Appropriation
Ordinance, 1957 ". 4th March, 1957

The Secretariat,
Antigua.
5th March, 1957.
Ref. No. 47/00496


No. 29.
The following Statutory Rules and
Orders are circulated with this Gazette
and form part thereof:-

Antigua.

No. 52 of 1956; The Pares Village
Extension Scheme."
7 pp. Price 10 cents.

No. 5 of 1957, "The Sugar
Export Cess (Amendment) Regula-
tions, 1957." 1 pp. Price 3 cents.

No. 6 of 1957, "Direction of the
Governor in Council given on Febru-
ary 5, 1957, pursuant to the provisions
of section 4 of the Land Settlement
and Development Board (Repeal)
Ordinance, 1953 (No. 14 of 1953)."
1 pp. Price 3 cents.

Montserrat.

No. 2 of 1957, "The Aerodromes
(Shooting of Animals) Regulations,
1957." 2 pp. Price 4 cents.

Virgin Islands.

No. 7 of 1957, Proclamation
dated February 20, 1957, bringing
into operation the Land Acquisition
Ordinance, 1957, (No. 4 of 1957)."
1 pp Price 3 cents.
No. 7A of 1957, "Proclamation
dated February 22, 1957, bringing
into operation the Firearms Ordi-
nance, 1956, (No. 1511956)."
1 pp Price 3 cents.


Statement of Currency Note
Circulation in the British
Caribbean Territories (East-
ern Group) on 1st February,
1957.
Average circulation during Decem-
ber, 1956:


Br. Caribbean Cur-
rency Notes


$
61,261,065.00


Demonetized Gov't.
Notes outstanding 1,132,544.00

62,393,609.00

Br. Caribbean Currency Notes in
circulation on 1st February, 1957:
$
Trinidad & Tobago ... 27,692,637.00
Barbados ... 5,837,625.00
British Guiana ... 16,158,441.00
Grenada ... 2,670,100.00
St. Vincent ... 449,400.00
St. Lucia ... 1.034,000.00
Dominica ... 1,479,400.00
Antigua ... 2,035,300.00
St. Kitts ... 1,589,500.00
Montserrat ... 342,905.00
Total. Br. Caribbean
Currency Notes ... 59,289,308.00

Demonetized Trinidad
and Tobago Gov't.
Notes outstanding ... 772,082.00

Demonetized Br.
Guiana Gov't.
Notes outstanding ... 281,162.00
Demonetized Barbados
Gov't. Notes
outstanding ... 72,540.00
Total demonetized
Government Notes
outstanding ... 1,125,784.00
Total circulation on
1st Feb., 1957 ... 60,415,092.00

L. SPENCE,
Executive Commissioner,
British Caribbean
Currency Board.

British C'aribbean Currency Board,
Treasury Chambers,
Port of Spain,
Trinidad B. W. .
Ref. No. 24100087.


VOL. II.


~









48 THE ANTIGUA, MONTSERRAT AND VIRGIN ISLANDS GAZETTE [March 7, 1957


Statement showing British Caribbean Coin
Circulation in the British Caribbean
Territories (Eastern Group) on 1st
February, 1957.
Average circulation during
December, 1956 $2,895,775.00
Trinidad & Tobago $1,251,125.00
Barbados 464,425.00
British Guiana 583,975.00
Grenada 131,825.00
St. Vincent 88,100.00
St. Lucia 115,150.00
Dominica 90,750.00
Antigua 111,000.00
St. Kitts 97,750.00
Montserrat 12,650.00
Proof Sets 1,870.00

$2,948,620.00
L. SPENCE,
Executive Commissioner.
Br. Caribbean Currency Board.
Headquarters,
British Caribbean Currency Board,
Treasury Chambers,
Port of Spain,
Trinidad.
Ref. No. 24/00079.

REGISTRY OF THE SUPREME COURT,
ANTIGUA.
4th March, 1957.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that there will be a sitting of the
West Indian Court of Appeal held at
the Court House in the City of Saint
John in the Colony of Antigua on
Thursday the 28th day of March,
1957, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon
when the undermentioned Appeal
will be heard:-

Plain tifs- Appellants.

Joseph Reynold O'Neal and Gertrude
O'Neal.

vS.

Defendants- Respon dents.

1. Vere Cornwall Bird
2. Edmund Hawkins Lake
3. Novelle Richards

4. Ernest Williams
5. Bradley Carrott
6. John Ireland
7. Levi Joseph

8. Joseph Samuel
9. Lionel Hurst

All persons concerned are requested
to govern themselves accordingly.
CECIL O. BYRON,
Registrar.


In the Supreme Court of the
Windward Islands and
Leeward Islands.
VIRGIN ISLANDS-
A.D. 1957.
NOTICE is hereby given that in
pursuance of Rules made by the
Chief Justice under Section 16 of the
Windward Islands and Leeward Is-
lands (Courts) Order in Council, 1939,
and duly approved as therein pro-
vided on the 16th day of October,
A.D. 1941, the Honourable the
Puisne Judge selected for thu Sitting
of the Court in the Virgin Islands
has appointed the day of the month
on which the ensuing Court shall sit
as follows, that is to say:-
The Virgin Islands Court on Wed-
nesday the 3rd day of April, 1957,
at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
Dated the 20th day of February,
1957.
H. A. Besson,
l~qcgstrar.

VIRGIN ISLANDS.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1944
(No. 11 of 1944)

DECLARATION.
Declaration dated 26th January,
1957, made under section 3 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1944 (No. 11
of 1944) for the acquisition of certain
land in the Colony of the Virgin
Islands required for public purposes.

IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that
the Governor in Council with the
approval of the Legislative Council of
the Colony of the Virgin Islands con-
siders that the lands described in the
Schedule hereto, being portions of
the lands of the estate of the late
Edmund Milton Thomas situate in Peef
Island in the said Colony, should be
acquired for a public purpose, namely
for the construction of an airfield in
the said Colony.
A plan of the said lands may
be inspected at the Administrator's
Office, Road Town between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on any
day except Sundays or Public Holi-
days.
SCHEDULE
(a) All that piece or parcel of land
being a portion of the lands of
the estate of the late Edmund Milton
Thomas situate in Beef Island in the
Colony of the Virgin Islands and
containing by admeasurement approx-
imately 5 acres and bounded as
follows:-

On the North, measuring 1120
feet, by lands of the aforesaid estate
of the late Edmund Milton Thomas;
On the South, measuring 760
feet. by lands of the aforesaid estate
of the late Edmund Milton Thomas;


On the West, measuring 350
feet, by lands of Charles Georges;
On the East, measuring 220 feet,
by lands of Sarah Thomas;
or howsoever otherwise the same may
be abutted, bounded, known, dis-
tinguished or described.
(b) All that piece or parcel of land
being a portion of the lands of the
of the estate of the late Edmund Milton
Thomas situate in Beef Island in the
Colony of the Virgin Islands and
containing approximately 191 acres
and bounded as follows:-
On the North, by the sea;
On the North-west, by lands of
the aforesaid estate of the late
Edmund Milton Thomas;
On the South, by lands of the
aforesaid estate of the late Edmund
Milton Thomas;
On the West, by lands of Saral
Thomas;
On the East, by lands of Mabel
Wagner;
or howsoever otherwise the same
may be abutted, bounded, known
distinguished or described.

M. TITLE,
Clerk of the Executive Council.
Ref. No. 7/0093--IV.


It is hereby notified for informa-
tion of the general public that the
City Rates payable for the year 1957
have been fixed as follows:-
On lots of land under an assessed
annual rental value of $48.00 10%
On lots of land of an assessed
annual rental value of $48.00 or
over ... 15%
Provided that there may be paid
in respect of lots of land situated
north of the street which joins
Bennett and Bryson Streets on their
northern ends the following rates:-

(1) On lots of land under an
assessed annual rental value of
$48.00 ... 5%
(2) On lots of land of an assessed
annual rental value of $48.00 or
over ... 74X
This means that the rates payable
on properties north of Alfred Peters
Street to the extreme northern end
of Bryson, Bennett and Athill Streets
have been increased from 5% to 10%
and from 7% to 15% depending on
the assessed annual rental values.
These increases have been made in
view of the improved city amenities
provided in the area.

Office of Central Board of Health,
Market Street,
26th February, 1957.










THE ANTIGUA, MONTSERRAT AND VIRGIN ISLANDS GAZETTE 49


Applications are invited from suitably
qualified candidates for appointment
to the post of Collector of Customs,
St. Vincent, particulars of which
are as follows:-


Appointment

The post is at present non-pension-
able, but steps are being taken to
declare it pensionable. The appoint-
ment carries with it the liability to
transfer to any post of equivalent
status within the Windward Islands.
The Officer will be subject to the
Colonial Regulations, General Orders
and Financial and Stores Rules of the
Windward Islands, for the time
being in force, in so far as they are
applicable.

Salary and Allowances

The salary of the post is at the rate
of $3360 per annum in the scale
$3360-120-$4320, plus a pay addition
of 20% of salary. Travelling and
subsistence allowances are payable in
accordance with local regulations.

Duties

The Officer will be responsible for
the general management and adminis-
tration of the Customs and Excise
Department, and for the observance
of the provisions of all Laws pertain-
ing to trade and customs and excise.
He will also carry out the duties of
Registrar of Shipping, and of the
United Kingdom Trade Corres-
pondent.

Qualifications

An intimate acquaintance will all
matters relating to Trade and Customs
work and business generally, and a
knowledge of the duties of the
Registrar of Shipping.

Quarters
Quarters are not provided.


Passages
Free first-class passages to St.
Vincent will be provided for the
officer, his wife and children; children
should be under 18 years of age,
unmarried and dependent on the
officer.

Leave and Leave Passages
Vacation leave on full salary will
be granted at the rate of 45 days per
annum, accumulating up to a maxi-
mum of 180 days.
Leave passages will be provided in
accordance with local regulations.

Medical Attention
Free medical attention and medi-
cines are not provided.

Taxation

All Government officers are liable
to taxation imposed by local legis-
lation.

Applications, giving full particulars
of applicants and accompanied by two
testimonials, should be addressed to
the Chief Secretary, Windward
Islands, Grenada, and should reach
him not later than the 31st March,
1957.

Applications are invited from suita-
bly qualified candidates for appoint-
ment to the post of Headmaster,
Dominica Grammar School, particu-
lars of which are as follows:

1. Appointment: The post is on the
permanent and pensionable establish-
ment and the appointment carries
with it liability to transfer to any post
of equivalent status in the Windward
Islands.

2. Salary: The salary is in the
scale of $3,840 x 120-$4,560 plus pen-
sionable pay addition of 20% of salary.
The point of entry into the scale will
be determined according to the can-
didate's qualification and experience.


3. Qualifications Required: Degree
in Science of a recognized University.

4. Duties: Officer appointed will
be required to teach Ch i-istry and
Physics to Higher Sch,,,i Certificate
Standard and Supervise a school of
260 boys: Knowledge of Games and
all other extra-cn:.ricnL]r activities
associated with a Secondary School;

He will be required to take part in
out of School activities;

He will also be rr-quired to perform
any other duties which may be as-
signed to him from time to time.

5. Quarters: Quarters are not pro-
vided.

6. Leave: The officer will be eligi-
ble for vacation leave at the rate of
45 days for each completed period of
12 months resident service, accumu-
lating up to a maximum of 180 days.

7. Leave Passages: Leave passages
will be provided in accordance with
local General Orders.

8. General Information: The officer
will be subject to the Colonial Regu-
lations, the Windward Islands Finan-
cial and Store Rules, the local General
Orders and subsidiary legislation in
force from time to time. Government
officials are liable to taxation imposed
by local enactments.

Applications containing full parti-
culars, including qualifications and
experience of applicant, should be
forwarded to the Chief Secretary,
Windward Islands, Grenada, to reach
him not later than 31st March, 1957.
Ref. No. A. C. 13189-III.

RAINFALL FIGURES

Central Experiment Station
Antigua.
Month 1953. 1954. 1955. 1956. 1957.
January 1.93 3.04 2.16 5.16 3.16
To Feb. 23 1.02 2.33 .41 1.15 2.23
2.96 5.37 2.57 6.30 5.39


March 7, 1957]








50 THE ANTIGUA, MUNTSE~tRAT AND VIILGIN ISLANDS GAZETTE.


WELCOME ADDRESS to His Excellency Mr. A. T. Williams,
C.M.G., M.B.E., by Hon. E. H. Lake (Minister for Social
Services). Saturday 23rd February, 1957.
Your Excellency,
It is my privilege on behalf of the Govern-
ment and people of Antigua to welcome Your
Excellency and Mrs. Williams to our little island
and may I express the hope that your stay in
this nart of the world will prove to be a pleasant
chapter in the records of your administrative
experience.
2. You have come from a territory where
perhaps conditions are different and you will
naturally take some time to acquaint yourself
with the customs and outlook of the people of
these islands. Until recent years misunder-
standlings prevailed amongst the different sections
of the community and there were frequent
disputes between the employing and labour
organizations. Your predecessor faced these
circumstances on assumption of duty and as
a result of his guidance he left the community
in an atmosphere of better understanding.
3. These islands are faced with the threat
of hurricane each year and whenever we are
visited by this destructive element the results
can be disastrous. Your predecessor arrived in
our midst soon after the island had suffered
from two hurricanes and a succession of des-
tructive fires. We were obliged to institute
a rehousing scheme to rehabilitate persons who
were victims of the hurricanes which destroyed
several houses in many of our villages.
4. We are glad, Sir, that your assumption
of duty has occurred under happier circum-
stances, though 1 think you should be informed
that Antigua's greatest drawback lies in the fact
that the island is subject to periods of recurrent
drought with their adverse effect on our crops
and upon our economy. Nevertheless we are
striving to overcome with our industry the
natural disadvantnages to which the island is
subject; and lest I should be guiltyy of painting
too grim a picture of the place in which you
and Mrs. Williams will make your home for the
next 5 years at least, let me hasten to assure
you that with moderate rains this can be one of
the loveliest places in the Caribbean.
5. Your Excellency's term of office begins
at a time when the units of the former Leeward
Islands Colony have been separated into four
distinct colonies with independent Legislatures
as from 1st July, 1956, and no longer is there
a Federation of the Leeward Islands. This step
was inevitable in order that the several units
might enter into the larger Federation of "The
West Indies with a status comparable to that
of the other territories of the region.
6. You have come to us at an historic
moment. The people of the West Indies have
ventured on a great voyage with a great purpose.
The decision to pursue this unique association
will demand the highest qualities of statesman-
ship and courage both on the part of the elected
representatives of the people and those entrusted
with administrative authority. You, Sir, can,
with your experience, assist us in our endeavours
to attain our goal of Dominion Status within
the British Commonwealth.


7. During the past year these islands have
undergone constitutional changes and we now
have in operation in Antigua the ministerial
system of Government. This is in keeping with
the policy of Her Majesty's Government of
guiding the territories to political maturity.
We are glad to record that by goodwill on the
part of all concerned the improved constitution
has resulted in greater achievement and greater
benefits for the people whom we serve. There
has been better understanding between the
people and the civil service and this, with the
spirit of co-operation amongst M.inisters and
Heads of Departments constitute a happy augury
for the future. Your Excellency will in your
capacity be the guiding figure in the machinery
of Government and we look forward to your
help in strengthening and even improving that
machinery.
8. You will, no doubt, wish to familiarize
yourself early with our economic and social
development plans and to learn something of
our problems. As you move around the island
you will readily appreciate the task that confronts
us and the limitations of our essential services
will soon be known to you. All those factors
can only serve to urge a responsible government
into action and we wish to assure Your Excel-
lency of our support and our readiness to work
with you as we did your predecessor.
9. We look forward to your friendly and
informal association with the inhabitants of
our community who have been displaying an
increasing interest in social activities and have
been showing marked evidence of a growing
determination to improve their living standards.
There has now been established an annual
festival which we refer to as The Hlomes,
Families, and Gardens Festival. This event has
served to foster a desire to live and work
together in inaking the home and its environ-
ments a suitable place for family life.
10. We are aware that your task will be
by no means confined to Antigua. All the four
colonies of the Leewards group will require
your constant attention but we are happy to say
that Your Excellency will find improved com-
munications between the islands which have
made travelling less tiresome than heretofore.
Air links have been established in all the islands
except in one case i.e. the island of Barbuda-
a dependency of Antigua. We trust that very
early during Your Excellency's term of office
this island will also be connected by Air
Service.
11. Your appointment has virtually co-
incided with the beginning of the life of this
Council, our general elections having been held
in November, 1956. We, therefore, have before
us five years in which to work together. If,
with God's help we make it five years of effort
and determination working with constructive
ideas and a progressive plan of action, this term
shall end with credit and satisfaction to all and
you and Mrs. Williams will I am sure, recall
this day and your stay wit 1'l as a happy and
notable experience in your .or ,'r.


Ll~archl 7, 19,57









March 7, 1957] THE ANTIGUA, MONTSERRAT AND VIRGIN ISLANDS GAZETTE 51

In the Supreme Court of the Windward Islands and Leeward Islands
ANTIGUA CIRCUIT.
On Appeal from the Magistrate's Court, District "A ".
Appeal No. 12/1956.
Between:-
CLAUDE EARL FRANCIS Appellant-Defendant
and
ADRIAN A. M. HILL Respondent-Plaintif
(Superintendent of Police)
Before: LEWIS, J.
Appellant in person
D. A. Mc NAMARA, Acting Attorney General for the Respondent.
1957-January 28
JUDGMENT.
The appellant was convicted by the Acting Magistrate of Magisterial District A in the
Colony, on the 27th day of September, 1956, on a charge "that he on the 10th day of August, 1956,
at St. John's in Magisterial District A in the Colony of Antigua being the driver of Motor Car A. G.
998 which was left stationary on Long Street at night failed to stop the vehicle as close as possible
to the left hand side of the road facing the direction in which the vehicle was proceeding (contrary to
Regulation 19 (5) (k) of Statutory Rule and Order No. 22 of 1946 made under the Vehicles and Road
Traffic Ordinance No. 5 of 1946."
The appellant challenges the Magistrate's decision on the following grounds:-
"1. There is no evidence on which the Magistrate could conclude that the car A. G. 998
was brought to a stand still at night on the road.
2. The Magistrate was wrong in holding that leaving of the vehicle i. e. bring the
vehicle to a stand still and alighting can be a Criminal Offence within Regulation
other than when committed at nights.
3. The Magistrate was wrong in holding that the word leaving in Regulation is a
continuing state of affairs and not the act of bringing the vehicle to a stationary
position and alighting from it."
The Acting Attorney General took a preliminary objection to the form of the appellant's
reasons for the appeal as set out in his Notice of Appeal and submitted that the reasons did not comply
with the provisions of Section 175 of the Magistrate's Code of Procedure Act Cap. 61, as amended by
the Magistrate's Code of Procedure (Amendment) Act No. 18/1955, in that the said reasons were more
in the nature of particulars supporting the reasons for appeal (as permitted by sub-section (3) of the said
Section) rather than reasons for appeal per se. He indicated however that he would have no objection
to an amendment of the appellant's reasons for appeal if the Court upheld his objection and was disposed
to grant the appellant leave to amend.
The appellant in reply argued that paragraphs (k) and (1) of sub-section (2) of section 175
indicated that the reasons for appeal set out in the said section were not exhaustive and there was no
need to copy slavishly the statutory reasons for appeal mentioned in the section.
In the light of the clear language of sub-section (2) of the section however, the Court was of
the opinion that the appellant's contention could not succeed and accordingly upheld the Attorney
General's submission. The appellant was however permitted to amend his reasons for appeal to read
as follows:-
"(1) That the decision is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the
evidence, that is to say, there is no evidence on which the Magistrate could conclude
that the car A. G. 998 was brought to a stand still at night on the road.
(2) That the decision was erroneous in point of law in that-
(a) the Magistrate was wrong in holding that leaving of the vehicle i. e. bring the
vehicle to a stand still and alighting can be a Criminal Offence within Regulation
other than when committed at nights,
(b) the Magistrate was wrong in holding that the word leaving in Regulation is a
continuing state of affairs and not the act of bringing the vehicle to a stationary
position and alighting from it."
In support of the appeal the appellant submitted firstly that the regulation under which he
was charged is a penal provision and that the rules of interpretation relating to penal statutes must be
applied in interpreting the regulation. In support of his submission he referred to London County
Council v. Aylesbury Dairy Company Limited (1898) 1 Q.B. 106 at page 109 and also to a paragraph
in Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes, eighth edition, at page 231 which deals with the construction of
penal statutes. Continuing his argument the appellant said that in interpreting the regulation regard
must be had to the words of the regulation and not to the mischief which the regulation aimed at
preventing, that the words of the regulation must be given their plain meaning, and that it should be
strictly construed.








52 THE ANTIGUA, MiONFSERBRAT AND VIRGINN ISLANDS GAZETTE. [March 7, 1957.

The appellant further submitted that an offence could only be committed under the regulation
if at the moment when a driver left his vehicle stationed in the road he did so "at night" (as defined in
the Ordinance under which the regulation was made) and at the same time failed to stop his vehicle in
the manner prescribed by the regulation. He contended that the word when in the regulation meant
" at the moment of" or "at the time of and the word leaving" in the context connoted the idea of a
driver coming out of and temporarily abandoning his vehicle. In short, the appellant says that it is no
offence to leave a vehicle stationary in the road at a period of time which does not fall within the period
described as at night in the Ordinance, and if the vehicle continues in this position until the aforesaid
period, no offence would be committed as the vehicle would not in fact in the first instance have been left
on the road "at night". It was further submitted by the appellant that the regulation contemplated
some definite action on the part of the driver by leaving his vehicle on the road "at night" and (lid not
refer to the merely passive circumstance in which a driver may have permitted his vehicle to be found
parked on the road "at night" in contravention of the regulation.
I will now turn.to the appellant's submission that the regulation is a penal one and should be
strictly construed. A reference to the authorities quoted below will show that this rule has now lost
much of its force. That this is so can be seen by a persual of part 3 Cap. 1 of Craies' Statute Law third
edition which deals with the definition and construction of penal Acts.
Moreover the following quotations from Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes seventh
edition make this principle clear beyond doubt:-
The rule which requires that penal and some other statutes shall be construed strictly was more
rigorously applied in former times when tile number of capital offences was very large, when it was
still punishable with death to cut down a cherry-tree in an orchard, or to be seen for a month in
the company of gipsies or for a soldier or sailor to beg and wander without a pass. Invoked in the
majority of cases in favorem vitac, it has lost much of its force and importance in recent times, and it
is now recognized that the paramount duty of the judicial interpreter is to put upon the language of
the Legislature, honestly and faithfully, its plain and rational meaning and to promote its object.
I cannot concur in the contention that because these Acts (against adulteration) impose penalties,
therefore their construction should, necessarily, be strict. I think that neither greater nor less
strictness should be applied to those than to other statutes ".
The rule was founded, however, on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals and
on the sound principle that it is for the Legislature, not the Court, to define a crime and ordain its
punishment. It is unquestionably a reasonable expectation that, when the former intends the
infliction of suffering, or an encro:ichment on natural liberty or rights, or the grant of exceptional
exemptions, powers, and privileges, it will not leave its intention to be gathered by mere doubtful
inference, or convey it in cloudy and dark words" only, but will manifest it with reasonable
clearness. The rule of strict construction does not, indeed, require or sanction that suspicious scrutiny
of the words, or those hostile conclusions from their ambiguity or from what is left unexpressed,
which characterise the judicial interpretation of affidavits in support of ex parte applications, or of
magistrates' convictions, where the ambiguity goes to the jurisdiction. Nor does it allow the imposi-
tion of a restricted meaning on the words, wherever any doubt can be suggested, to withdraw from
the operation of the statute a case which falls both within its scope and the fair sense of its language.
This would be to defeat, not to promote, the object of the Legislature; to misread the statute and
misunderstand its purpose. A court is not at liberty to put a limitation on general words which
is not called for by the sense, or the objects, or the mischiefs of the enactment, and no construction
is admissible which would sanction a fraudulent evasion of an Act. But the rule of strict con truc-
tion requires that the language shall be so construed that no cases shall be held to fall within it which
do not fall both within the reasonable meaning of its terms and within the spirit and scope of the
enactment. Where an enactment may entail penal consequences, no violence must be done to its
language to bring people within it, but rather care must be taken that no one is brought within it who
is not within its express language." (Pages 226-227, Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes.)
The rale of strict construction, however, whenever invoked, comes attended with qualifications,
and other rules no less important and it is by the light which each contributes that the meaning
must be determined. Among them is the rule that that sense of the words is to be adopted which
best harmonises with the context and promotes in the fullest manner the policy and object of the
Legislature. The paramount object, in construing penal as well as other statutes, is to ascertain the
legislative intent and the rule of strict construction is not violated by permitting the words to have
their full meaning, or the more extensive of two meanings, when best effectuating the intention.
They are, indeed, frequently taken in the widest sense, sometimes even in a sense more wide than
etymologically belongs or is popularly attached to them, in order to carry out effectually the
legislative intent, or, to use Lord Coke's words, to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy."
(Pages 236-237, ibid).
The tendency of modern decisions, upon the whole, is to narrow materially the difference
between what is called a strict and a beneficial construction. All statutes are now construed with a
more attentive regard to the language, and criminal statutes with a more rational regard to the aim
and intention of the Legislature, than formerly. It is unquestionably right that the distinction
should not be altogether erased from the judicial mind, for it is required by the spirit of our free
institutions that interpretation of all statutes should be favourable to personal liberty, and this
tendency is still evinced in a certain reluctance to supply the defects of language, or to eke out the








TMarch 7, 1957.] THE ANTIGUA, MONTSERRAT AND VIRGIN ISLANDS GAZETTE 53

meaning of an obscure passage by strained or doubtful inferences. The effect of the rule of strict
construction might almost be summed up in the remark that, where an equivocal word or ambiguous
sentence leaves a reasonable doubt of its meaning which the canons of interpretation fail to solve, the
benefit of the doubt should be given to the subject and against the Legislature which has failed to
explain itself. But it yields to the paramount rule that every statute is to be expounded according
to its expressed or manifest intention and that all cases within the mischiefs aimed at are, if the
language permits, to be held to fall within its remedial influence." (Page 244, ibid).
In view of the above authorities I am of the opinion that it is the duty of the Court to ascertain
the aim and intention of the Legislature in passing the regulation in question, to see what mischief it
was aimed at preventing and so to construe the regulation as to give effect to the intention of the
Legislature without doing violence either to the language of the regulation or the canons of legal
interpretation.
It is apparent that the Legislature intended by the regulation to ensure safety on the roads
" at night" by compelling users of vehicles so to park their vehicles that the greatest possible space would
be available on the roads to permit the safe passage of traffic along the roads at a period when because
of the nature of the light driving might be attended with greater hazards.
The question thnt calls for decision is this: Does the language of the regulation fairly and
reasonably convey this intention? The appellant says it does not. The Acting Attorney General
arguing to the contrary .s;:ys that it does, and submitted that the regulation means that when a vehicle
is left "at night on the road it must be parked in a particular manner, i.e. in the manner prescribed
by the regulation. He added that the word "leaving" refers to the vehicle and he urged that the
only construction which could reasonably be put on the regulation is that if a vehicle is left on the road
" at night" whether parked there before, during, or after the period comprehended in the definition of
"at night" as long as it is found on the road during the said period it must be parked in the prescribed
manner.
Despite the very able and ingenious argument of the appellant I have come to the conclusion
that the Acting Attorney General's interpretation of the regulation is the correct one. Any other
interpretation of the regulation would lead to a manifest absurdity and would offend the principles of
common sense and the rules of legal interpretation.
In my view the regulation requires a vehicle which is parked at any period of time prior to the
period which is included in the definition of at night ", to be parked in the manner therein prescribed if
it is the driver's intention that the vehicle should remain parked on the road at night" and it is in fact
found so parked during this period; and it is no answer if the vehicle is found parked on the road,
at night" to say that it was parked there at some time before the prescribed period and has not been
moved. All that is necessary to sustain a conviction under the regulation is proof that a vehicle was
found drawn up at the side of the road at night in a manner which does not conform to the provisions
of the regulation, and as the appellant admitted in evidence before the M1agistrate that he was the driver
of the car in question and that his car was found at 10.30 p.m. parked in contravention of the regulation,
the appellant was in my view rightly convicted. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with 3 guineas
,costs to be paid by the appellant.
P. Cecil Lewis,
Puisne Judge,








54 THE ANTIGUA, MONTSERRAT AND VIRGIN ISLANDS GAZETET [March 7, 1957

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE WINDWARD ISLANDS AND LEEWARD ISLANDS.

ANTIGUA CIRCUIT

On appeal from the Magistrate's Court Distriot B"

Appeal No. 11/1956
Between:-


EDWARD IRISH


and


ADRIAN A. M. HILL


Appellant- Defendant


Responded nt- Plaintiff


Before: LEWIs, J.
C. Ross for the Appellant
J. HANNAYS (Legal Assistant) for the Respondent.
1957-January 28.
JUDGMENT


The appellant on the 11th day of July, 1956,
was charged at Bolans before the Magistrate of
District B with the offence of carrying abroad
a certain offensive weapon, to wit a knife, and was
unable to offer a satisfactory reason for possessifig
the same. To this charge the appellant pleaded
not guilty.
The charge was laid under section 11 of the
Small Charges Act Cap. 67 of the Federal Acts of
the Leeward Islands 1927, which reads as follows:-
11. Any person found carrying abroad
any gun, pistol, hanger, cutlass, bludgeon
or other offensive weapon whatsoever, or any
explosive matter or thing, who is unable to
afford a satisfactory reason for the possession
of the same, shall be liable to a fine not
exceeding five pounds or to imprisonment for
a term not exceeding one month, and in
addition to any such penalty, the Magistrate
may take from any such person any such gun,
pistol, hanger, cutlass, bludgeon or other
offensive weapon."
The case for the prosecution rested on the
evidence of one witness, Corporal West, whose
evidence was to the effect that the appellant was
walking along Old Road one Sunday morning
when he stopped him and told the appellant that
he had received information that he was armed
with certain explosive matters which he had in his
pocket, that he asked the appellant to show him
the contents of his pocket and the appellant walked
away and he thereupon went up to the appellant
whom he alleges had a knife in the sheath at his
side and attempted to draw it. It was admitted
that no explosive matters were found on the
appellant. The corporal said that when he asked
the appellant what was his reason for carrying
abroad a knife the appellant said that the knife was
his and he walked with it as he liked". The
corporal thereupon took possession of the knife
and says that he told the appellant that he would
be "reported for carrying a weapon abroad."


It was submitted on the appellant's behalf at
the close of the case for the prosecution that he
had no case to answer and that there was no
evidence that the knife which he was carrying was
an offensive weapon. The Magistrate however
rejected this submission ;and called upon the
appellant for his defence.
The appellant's defence was that he had left
his home on the Sunday morning in question with
the knife and was on his way to his father's land
to cut two bunches of bananas at his father's
request. That while speaking to one William
Jeffreys, Corporal West came np and grabbed him
and said he understood he was carrying dynamite,
which allegation the appellant denied. The appel-
lant also denied that the Corporal asked him what
he was doing w'th the knife or why he was.
carrying it.
William Jeffreys' evidence is to the same effect
as the appellant's and sulports the appellant's
story as to what took place between the appellant
and the Corporal.
The appellant's father, Charles Irish who is
a licensed butcher gave evidence for the appellant
and corroborated the appellant's story. He said
that he had sent the appellant to his ground at
Claremonte's Estate at Trementinia to cut twoc
bunches of figs and that the appellant took his.
(the witness') butcher's knife in a sheath with him.
The Magistrate said that he did not believe
the appellant's story and convicted him. From
this decision the appellant appealed on the follow-
ing grounds:-
"1. That the decision is unreasonable or
cannot be supported having regard to
the evidence.
2. That the decision is erroneous in point
of law in that the learned Magistrate
held that the knife carried by the
Defendant was an offensive weapon









3March 7, 1957.] THE ANTIGUA, MONTSERRAT AND VIRGIN ISLANDS GAZETTE. 55


within the meaning of Section 11 of the
Small Charges Act, Chapter 67 of the
Federal Laws of the Leeward Islands
(Revised Edition).
3. Any other grounds that may be urged
at the hearing of the said Appeal. "

The third grounds of appeal was struck out by the
Court after the appellant's Counsel's attention had
been drawn to the provisions of section 175 of the
Magistrate's Code of Procedure Act, Cap. 61 as
amended by Act No. 18/1955.
It will be appropriate at this stage to deal first
with the appellant's second ground of appeal: vi:.
that the Magistrate's decision was erroneous in
point of law in holding that the appellant's knife
was an offensive weapon.
In support of his second ground of appeal
Counsel for appellant contended that the appellant's
knife was not an offensive weapon on the facts
adduced by the prosecution and that there was no
evidence on which the Magistrate could so find in
the particular circumstances of the case. He
conceded that almost any object could be an
offensive weapon but he submitted that whether an
object was, or was not, an offensive weapon had
to be arrived at by taking into account all the
relevant circumstances He urged that the appel-
lant's knife could only have been an offensive
weapon if the appellant had brandished the knife,
in circumstances in which it would be reasonable to
infer that he intended to use it for an unlawful
purpose and the prosecution had not suggested
that the appellant while in possession of the knife
had any unlawful purpose in view. He submitted
further that the appellant's possession of the knife
was far from being unlawful. His story showed
that he had the knife for a perfectly lawful and
legitimate purpose. In support of his contentions
Counsel for the appellant referred to 7he Criminal
Law Re ri-w, May 1954, pages 321 and 378 and
to the case of R. v. Jurm 2 Weekly Law Reports
(1954) 51s0.
The Legal Assistant argued that the Magis-
trate's findings of fact in the case ought not to be
disturbed unless the Court was satisfied that he
had been guilty of gross abuse of his discretion or
that his findings were glaringly unreasonable.
The Magistrate, he said, made it clear that he did
not believe the appellnnt's reason for possession of
the knife and he was entitled to do this on all the
evidence before him.
In commenting on the second ground of appeal
the Legal Assistant also referred to R. v. Jura
38 Criminal Appeal Reports (1954) p. 53 and said
that in that case it was not possession of the rifle
which was unlawful but the use thereof and since
the person charged was carrying the rifle for the
lawful purpose of shooting at a shooting gallery
he was not carrying it without lawful excuse. In
-the instant case possession of an offensive weapon
is per se unlawful unless a satisfactory reason for
possession of the same c;n be established by the
person charged, and this, he said, constituted the


essential difference between R. v. Jura and the
present case. Counsel for the respondent went on
to say that if the appellant had been found in his
father's ground with the knife cutting the bananas
this would have made his possession of the knife
lawful and the question of giving a satisfactory
account for his possession thereof could not
have arisen.
On the question whether or not the knife was
an offensive weapon he urged that the knife was
not merely a pocket knife but a sheath knife and
the Magistrate was entitled to find that it was an
offensive weapon from its very nature. He con-
tended that no overt action on the appellant's part
involving use. of the knife was necessary to con-
stitute it an offensive weapon, but that in deciding
whether or not the knife was an offensive weapon
the Magistrate was entitled to look at all the
circumstances surrounding the case.

In the light of the above submissions it is
necessary to see if the facts as found by the
Magistrate entitled him to draw therefrom the
inference that the knife was an offensive weapon in
the circumstances.
In dealing with the power of a Court of
appeal to consider whether a subordinate Court has
drawn a correct inference from its findings of fact,
the words of Denning L.J. in Driscoll v. Church
Commissioners for England, (1956) 3 IV. L.IR. 996
atp. 1002 are particularly relevant to the circum-
stances of this case. The Lord Justice in speaking
of appeals from a Lands Tribunal by a person
aggrieved by a decision as being erroneous in point
of law says:-

I must first say a word about appeals
from the Lands Tribunal. Parliament has
now enacted, in the Lands Tribunal Act, 1949,
section 3(4), A decision of the Lands Tribu-
nal shall be final'"; but then there is this
proviso: 'Provided that any person aggrieved
'by the decision as being erroneous in point of
'law may, within such time as may be limited
by rules of court, require the tribunal to state
'and sign a case for the decision of the court.'
That is the provision under which the matter
is brought before us. A person who is
aggrieved by the decision as being erroneous
in point of law may bring the matter up to
this court. I would not wish those words
unduly to hamper an appeal from the tribunal:
and I do not think they do, because it is well
settled that the question whether or not there
is anmy evidence to support a particular finding
is a question of law. It is also well settled
that the question whether an inference drawn
from primary facts is a legitimate inference is
also a question of law. There have been
before the Divisional Court several cases of
dangerous driving where the Lord Chief
Justice and his colleagues, having had primary
facts stated, have held that the justices were
not justified in dismissing the charge and have
directed them to convict. Such was the case
of Bracegirdle v. Oxley. It is for the tribunal









56 THE ANTIGUA, MONTSERRAT AND VIRGIN ISLANDS GAZETTE.


of fact to find the primary facts, but having
done so, the inferences from those facts are
matters upon which an aggrieved person can
appeal.
In this case, therefore, we have to see
what are the facts which the tribunal has
found, and to see what are the conclusions it
has drawn from those facts. Then we have to
see whether the conclusions it has drawn are
reasonable conclusions for it to draw."
In order to apply the principles laid down in
the above mentioned quotation it is essential to
discover first what were the learned Magistrate's
findings of fact, secondly what conclusions he drew
from those facts and finally if the conclusions so
drawn were reasonable.
The Magistrate's findings of fact were:-
"1. On the first day of July 1956 David
West Corporal of Police met the
Defendant on Old Road Public Road
in the Magisterial District B ".
2. David West searched the Defendant
and found a knife in a sheath at the
Defendant's side.
3. David West asked the Defendant
what was his reason for carrying the
knife abroad.
4. The Defendant told David West that
the knife was his and he walked with
it as he liked."
The conclusions which he drew from these
facts were:-
1. The defendant was carrying abroad a
a knife on the morning of the 1st
July 1956.
2. The knife which the Defendant was
carrying was an offensive weapon.

3. The Defendant was unable to give
any satisfactory reason for the pos-
session of the knife.
4. The Defendant was guilty of an
offence under section 11 of the Small
Charges Act Cap. 67 of the Laws of
the Leeward Islands. Revised
Edition 1927 as amended."
The Magistrate's first conclusion is unobjec-
tionable, and indeed the appellant never denied that
he was carrying a knife on the morning of July 1st
1956. The second conclusion however, viz that
the knife which the appellant was carrying was an
offensive weapon needs to be examined with some
care to see whether it was a reasonable inference to
be drawn from the facts as found by the Magistrate.
On what findings of fact was the second con"
elusion based? It could not have been on the
Magistrate's first and second findings and ex
necessitate it could only have been based on his
third and fourth.


The sum total of' the Magistrate's third and
fourth findings of fact is that Cpl. West asked the
appellant what was his reason for carrying abroad
the knife and the appellant replied that the knife
was his and he walked with it as he liked. That is
all. To conclude from these facts that the knife
was therefore an offensive weapon is in my view
not a legitimate inference, as it cannot be justified
or supported by the facts found by the Magistrate-
In this connection the following commentary
which appears at page 379 of The Criminal Law
Review, May 1954 with reference to R v. Jura is
of interest:
"Commentary. In a case similar to this,
R. v. Hod:qson (Leeds Assizes, March 3,
1954), a m;n who discharged a shotgun from
his car when following another car was charged
under the Prevention of Crime Act, 1953,
with having with him in a public place an
offensive weapon without lawful authority or
reasonable excuse. Pearson J. directed the
jury that a shotgun is not an article made for
causing injury to the person and therefore the
prosecution must establish an intention on the
part of the accused, at the time of firing the
shotgun, to use it for causing injury to the
person. The question whether the accused
had such an intention is for the jury to decide.
In H. M1. Advocate v. Green (Aberdeen
Sheriff's Court) a man who used a skean-dhu
in a threatening manner in the street was
similarly charged. He pleaded guilty and was
fined 2 on this charge. See also 1954
S.L.T. 67."
In the editorial at page 321 of the same
publication the learned editors in commenting on
H. M. Advocate v. Green, a case in the Aberdeen
Sheriff's Court in which a man was charged under
the Prevention of Crime Act, 1953 with unlawful
possession of an offensive weapon the learned
editors said:
The latter (i.e. H.MI. Advocate v. Green)
raised questions, discussed in the Scots Law
Timw's at page 67, but filed to answer them
and caused much dlairm to all true Scotsmen.
A man carrying a skean-dhu was found guilty
under the Act of being in unlawful possession
of an offensive weapon. Was the national
dress of Scotland, or at least a most important
part of it, to be prescribed as after the
resolution of 45 with, to quote Lord Saltoun
'all the dismal consequences that ensued upon
the prescription'? It appears, however, that
the man was convicted of having an offensive
weapon with him in a public place because he
brandished it in a manner which indicated that
he intended to injure someone, and the Lord
Advocate is taking steps to ensure that if a
similar case arises again, no charge will be
made under the 1953 Act."
The direction of Peparon J. in R. v. Hodgson
and the reason given by the learned editors of The
Criminal Law Reliew for the conviction of the


[Marrch 7, 195T








lMareh 7, 1957] 'THE ANTIGUA, MONTSERRAT AND VIRGIN ISLANDS GAZETTE 57


Scotsman who was carrying the skenn-dha viz that
he was brandishing it about in a threatening
manner lend support to the submission of counsel
for the appellant that mere possession of a weapon
which may potentially be an offensive weapon is
not in itself sufficient to justify its being declared
an offensive weapon and I accept this view. A
knife does not become an offensive weapon merely
because a pert answer is given to a constable who
inquires why it is being carried about nor even
because a person is found carrying it in a sheath at
his side on a Sunday morning. Something more
than mere possession is needed where the facts on
which the declaration was made are such as were
found by the Magistrate in this case.

The appellant had given what appeared prima
facie to be a reasonable excuse for carrying the
knife and it was then incumbent on the prosecution
to adduce other circumstances to show that his
purpose in carrying it may have been unlawful.
No such circumstances were adduced and there was


consequently no evidence on which the Magistrate
could base his finding that the appellant's knife was
an offensive weapon in the circumstances.

Whether on the evidence before him the
Magistrate may have found other facts is beside the
point, and it is not within the province of this
Court, nor is it its duty to speculate on this ques-
tion. The essential question is that the Magistrate
found certain facts and from these facts drew a
conclusion which in my opinion was neither reason-
able nor legitimate in view of his findings, and for
this reason the appeal must be allowed.

The appellant's conviction is quashed and the
judgment and order of the learned Magistrate set
aside. The respondent must pay the appellant two
guineas costs.


P. CECIL LEWIS,
Puisne Judge.


!Printed at the Government Printing Office, Antigua, Leeward Islanuds by E. M. BlaCKMAN, M.B.E,
Government Printer.-By Authority.
1957,
[Price 39 cants.l







ANTIG UA.

STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS.
1956, No. 52.


THE PARES VILLAGE EXTENSION SCHEME, MADE BY THE
CENTRAL AUTHORITY AND APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR
IN COUNCIL UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY
PLANNING ORDINANCE, 1948 (No. 4 OF 1948).


1. Designation of Scheme. The Scheme set out
hereunder shall be designated the Pares Village Extension
Scheme.
2. Area of Scheme. The provision of the scheme
shall apply to all that area of land comprising of 8.356 acres
delineated and defined on a map or plan prepared by
E. A. Govia, Licensed Surveyor, on the 22nd September,
1954, which said land was formerly part of Codrington Estate
and is bounded as follows that is to say on the North by the
Public load, on the East by lands of the Antigua Syndicate
Est;it-s. Ltd., on the South by lands of the Antigua Syndicate
Estates, Ltd., and on the West by lands of the Antigua
Syndicate Estates, Ltd., and existing village.
8. Object of Scheme. To provide plots to relieve
congestion of villages.
4. Development of Land. Save as may be
permitted by the terms of an order made under the provisions
of section 22 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Ordinance
1948 (No. 4 of 1948) the development of land (within the
meaning of the said Ordinance) shall be restricted to the area
shown on the aforesaid map or plan and be carried out in
accordance with the provisions of this scheme.
5. Size of Building Plots. There are 84 plots
of various sizes, as shown on the plan.
6. Prohibited Purposes. (a) No land shall be
bought, sold, leased, mortgaged, exchanged or sublet without
the consent in writing of the Central Authority.
(6) The consent of the Central Authority shall not
( be unreasonably withheld, provided that consent shall not
jW. ^f








be granted unless the prospective purchaser, lessee,
exchange or sub-lessee or his agent make a statutory
declaration that the land is required and intended for his
own use or the personal use of his principal.
(c) In cases where consent has been withheld to an
application for permission to sell, lease or exchange, the
Central Authority may, with the agreement of the prospec-
tive vendor, leasor or exchanger repurchase the land at a
reasonable sum. In the event of failure to arrive at a
reasonable sum by agreement the matter shall be referred
to arbitration.

(d) No dry goods store, shop, parlour or other place
where food is sold shall be established or connected with.
out the approval in writing of the Central Authority.

7. Subdividing. No plot as laid out on the said map
or plan shall be subdivided.
8. Maintenance of Land and House in Good
Condition. It shall be the responsibility of the purchaser of
each plot to maintain both land and house in good condition to
the satisfaction of the Central Authority.

9. Building Line. In order to preserve the uni-
formity of the frontage the purchaser of each plot shall observe
the building line which is a distance of at least 10 ft. from the
road boundary, curb of the road or access path, and in no case
shall the front of any dwelling house or any building be made
to extend nearer to or further from the said road or street than
such position on the said land as is indicated by the said building
line.
10. Size of Houses and height of Dwelling
Houses above ground. Every new building intended
as a dwelling house to be erected on any of the lots shall
ha7e a minimum habitable floor space of not less than 120 sq. ft.
and shall have the lowest floor raised from the ground at least
eighteen inches and supported on masonry with proper and
sufficient ventilation beneath the floor; provided that if the
frontage of the building abuts on any public place the said
building shall be on a continuous dwarf wall or concrete pillars.

11. Approval of Plans. No dwelling-house, shop,
hotel or other building shall be erected upon any of the plots
otherwise that. in accordance with plans and elevations and of









materials previously approved by or on behalf of the Central
Authority and no building shall be commenced upon any plot
until the Central Authority or its agents shall have given a
certificate in writing of such approval.
12. One Building or Private House with
Out-Buildings on each Plot. Not more than one
building or dwelling-house shall be erected on each plot
except the necessary and usual out-buildings, stables, garage
with living rooms over to be used in connection with aiy house
erected on the same plot or any house now standing or hereafter
to be erected on any adjoining land and such dwelling-house
shall not be of less value than i'l' exclusive of stabling and
out-buildings, and no building shall be erected until the site
and elevation- thereof and the site of any offices and stabling
thereto shall have been approved by or on behalf of the
Central Authority, and every such building shall be of such
character and description and build according to such plans,
designs and elevations as shall have been similarly approved in
writing before the same is commenced, and no such building
shall after erection be altered without the like previous consent
in writing before the same is commenced.
13. Coverage of Plot. No dwelling-house, includ-
ing out-houses of whatever character on a building plot shall
cover more than A of the surface of the plot.
14. Excavations. No sand or gravel shall be dug out
of any plot except in the course of excavating for foundations.
15. Kitchens. The floor of every kitchen shall be
made of non-inflammable materials and the chimney of every
such building shall be carried to such a height above continuous
height as may be specified by the Central Authority.
16. Garage. Every garage shall be made of concrete,
stone, iron or- some non-inuammable material as far as
practicable.
17. Latrine Accommodation. Every building
intended for use as a dwelling or as a shop, or as a factory, or
as a place of business shall be provided with proper latrine
accommodation e.g. a pit latrine of a type to be approved
by the Health Authorities.
18. Drainage. Each plot shall have drains properly
laid to a suitable outfall for the efficient drainage of any rain or
surface water from the site, and the subsoil of the site shall be
effectually drained, whenever the possibility of dampness of the
site renders such a precaution necessary.








19 Projections beyond Building Line or over
Public Place. No portion-of the front wall of any message
or dwelling-house to be erected on any part of the plot shall
project beyond the building line indicated upon the said plan,
and no portion of or attachment to any building shall
permanently project on or over any public place in such a
manner that in the opinion of the Central Authority or other
competent authority it would cause an obstruction or danger.

20. Temporary Structure's. There shall not at
any time be erected or placed or suffered to be or remain on
any of the plots any temporary building or structure except
sheds, workshops or office rooms to be used for the purpose of
and in connection with the building of permanent buildings in
course of construction upon such plot.

21. Air space in front of Dwelling-House.
Every dwelling-house shall have an open space of at least
twenty-four feet in front thereof. The space shall be measured
to the boundary of any land or building immediately opposite
to the dwelling-house or to the opposite site of any public
place on which the dwelling-house immediately abuts and the
space shall extend throughout the whole frontage of such
d welling-house.

22. Air space around Dwelling-House. :\o
dwelling-house shall be placed nearer than a distance of sixteen
feet to its site boundary at the rear or nearer than a distance of
six feet from the eaves or any projecting part to its site boundary
on either side. Provided that out-buildings approved by the
vendor or other competent authority may be erected at the
rear of a dwelling house.

23. Encroachment. No person shall erect any new
building without previously removing every step or other
encroachment which may be in or on the public place in front
of the site where such building is to be erected.

24. Notice of intention to Build. (a) Every
person intending to erect, remove or alter a building shall give
notice of such intention to the Central Authority.

(b) The riotice shall be in duplicate upon the form
prescribed by the Central Authority and shall be
accompanied by plans in duplicate sufficient to show that
the proposed building comply with the requirements of
the Central Authority.








26. Approval by the Central Authority.
The Central Authority shall within six weeks of the delivery of
such notice, signify in writing its approval or disapproval
thereof. In the case of disapproval the Authority shall give
reasons for its disapproval or specify what alterations are
required.
26. Notification of work. Any owner or his
agent who intends to execute or executes work to which this
scheme applies,
(a) shall notify the Central Authority in writing the
date on which work will begin;
(b) shall notify the Central Authority in writing of
the completion of any work within fourteen days after
completion;
(c) may notify the Central Authority in writing of
the completion of part of any work to a val e not less than
five hundred dollars within fourteen days of the completion
of work.
27. Period of Construction. (a) Building
construction shall commence within six months of approval,
failing which the approval shall be deemed to have lapsed.
Construction shall be completed within one year of the date
of commencement.
The Central Authority may in its discretion grant an
extension of the abovementioned period.
(b) In the case of default the Central Authority may
re-purchase the lot at a price for which it was sold by the
Central Authority and may purchase for a reasonable sum
that part of the building which had been erected up to the
time of the expiry of the agreed period.
In the event of failure to arrive at a reasonable sum by
agreement the matter shall be referred to arbitration.
28. Inspection. (a) The Central Authority shall
within twenty-one days after receipt of a notice of completion
as provided for in clause '6; sections (b) and (c), inspect the
work covered by such notice.
(b) the (entral Authority or any duly authorised
officer reserves the right to enter atny part of the scheme
whether sold, leased, rented or exchanged for purpose of
inspection;









(c) every person who executes work in any part or
section of the scheme shall afford members of the Central
Authority or its duly authorized employees free access to
the work for the purpose of inspection at all reasonable
times during the execution of the work.

29. Default. (a) The owner or his ugent who
executes work to which this scheme applies and who receives
from the Central Authority notice in writing during the
progress of the work of within six weeks after receipt by the
Central Authority of a notice of completion as provided
for in clause 26 sections (b) and (c) specifying any matters in
respect of which the erection or execution may be in contraven-
tion of the scheme and requiring such person, within a time
specified, to cause anything done contrary to the provisions of
the scheme to be amended, or to do anything which by any
such provision may be required to be done hut which has been
.omitted to be done, shall within the time specified, comply with
the several requirements and shall deliver to the Authority a
notice in writing of the completion of such work within fourteen
days of the completion.

(b) In any oase of non-compliance with the require-
ments of the aforesaid notice, it shall be lawful for the
Authority in accordance with the provisions of section 20
of the Town and Country Planning Ordinance, 1948
to execute the works.required and recover the cost from
the owner as a civil debt.

80. Any person aggrieved by the agreement or refusal
of the Authority to signify its approval under clause 25 to
grant its consent under clause 6 shall have a right of appeal in
terms mutatis mutandis of section 14 of the Town and
Country Planning Ordinance, 1948.
Made by the Central Housing and Planning Authority
this 14th day of May, 1956.

CLARENCE SIMON,
Secretary Executive Officer.
Central Authority.

NOVELLE H. RICHAtRDS,
Chairman, C'entrul Housing
Planning Authority.









Approved by the Governor in Council this 11th day of
September, 1956.

F. A. CLARKE,
Clerk of the Council.











































Printed at the Governmnet Printing Office, Antigua. Leewaid Islande.
by E. M. BLACKMAN, M.B.E., Government Printer.-By Authority.
1957.


A 38/91-5W-3.57.


[Prioe 10 cents.








ANTIGUA.


STATUTORY RULES AND ORI)DKS.
1957, No. 5.


The Sugar Export Cess (Amendment) Regulations, 1957,
dated February 5, 1957, made by the Governor in
Council under section 7 of the Sugar Export Cess
Ordinance, 1947 (No. 1011947).


1. Citation. Thebe Regulations may be cited as the
Sugar Export Cess (Amendment) Regulations, 1957, and shall
be read as one with the Sugar Export Cess Regulations, 1948
(S.R. & 0. 1948 No. 5), as amended, hereinafter called the
Principal Regulations.

2. Amendment of Schedule to Principal
Regulations. Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 9 of the
Schedule to the Principal Regulations is hereby amended by
the substitution of the words "calendar year" for the words
" three months ".


Made by the Governor in
February, 1957.


Council this 5th day of


F. A. CLARKE,
Clerk of the Council.










Printed at the Government Printing Office, Antigua, Leeward Islands.
by E. BLACKMAN, Government Printer.-By Authority.
1957.


1 ^B .004 ^


[Prioe 3 cents.]


A 71/8-11-510-3.57.








ANTIGUA.


STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS.

1957, No. 6.


Direction of the Governor in Council given on February 5,
1957, pursuant to the provisions of section 4 of the
Land Settlement and Development Board (Repeal)'
Ordinance, 1953 (No. 14 of 195C).



ALEc LOVELACE,
A administrator.

In exercise of the powers vested in the Governor in
Council by section 4 of the Land Settlement and Development
Board (Repeal) Ordinance, 1953, the Governor in Council
directs that the said section 4 shall apply to the moveable
property described in the Schedule hereto, the same being
moveable property of the Board immediately prior to the let
day of January, 1954.

And it is hereby declared that by virtue of the provisions
of the said section 4 the said moveable property is hereby
deemed to have been transferred from the Board to the Govern-
ment on the 1st day of January, 1954.

.\ikd by the Governor in Council this 5th day of Feb-
ruary, 1957.

F. A. CLARKE,
Clerk of the Council.











7 :y'











SCHEDULE.

1 Fordson major r Tractor A.G. 748
(Wheel)
1 Fordson Major Tractor A.G. 749
(Wheel)
1 Ford Thames Truck A.G. 747
1 Bedford Truck A.G. 809
1 Massey Harris Tractor A.G. 776
1 Massey Harris Tractor A.G. 818
1 Massey harris Tractor A.G. 819
1 International Crawler
Tractor T.D. 9
1 Morris Oxford Pickup 790
2 Nabor Carts
8 Steel Carts
3 Wooden Carts
2 Massey Harris Half Trucks
1 Massey Harris Half Track
2 David Brown Two Furrow Discs Plough
1 Tandem Disc Harrow
1 98-43 Four Furrow Disc Plough
1 Ajax Two Furrow Disc Plough
2 Massey Harris Hubs Wheel Centre
2 Massey Harris Hubs Wheel Centre
1 Massey Harris Rear Wheel Axle
1 Angle Dozer Blade
66 Street Plates T.D.G.
1 Large Grease Pump
1 Small Grease Pump
8 Spare Discs
1 Small Foot Pump
8 Shovels
2 Manure Forks
2 Buckets
1 Fordson .Jack
3 Salopian Three Furrow Ploughs.















Printed at tlAo Govlrnment Printing Office. Antigua, Leeward Islands,
by E. M. BLACKMAN. GOov nmnnt Printer.-By Anthority.
1957.
A 1/170--500-3.57. [ Price 4 cents.]








MONTSERRAT.


STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS.
1957, No. 2.


The Aerodromes (Shooting of Animals) Regulations, 1957,
dated February 13, 1957, made by the Governor in
Council under Section 3 of the Aerodromes Ordinance,
1957 (No. 1 of 1957).

1. Citation. These Rules may be cited as the Aero-
dromes (Shooting of Animals) Regulations, 1957.

2. Interpretation. In these Regulations-
Owner" in relation to an animal includes a person
having possession or control of the animal.
3. Shooting of Animals on Aerodromes.
(a) Any person holding a written licence from the Governor
may, subject to the conditions laid down in the licence, shoot
any animal found trespassing on any aerodrome specified in the
licence.
(b) Any person shooting an animal under the provisions
,f this rule shall take all practicable steps forthwith to ascertain
the owner of such animal, and immediately upon ascertaining
the owner, shall serve on him ai written notice of such shooting,
such notice to contain a direction that the Owner immediately
remove the carcase of the animal from the aerodrome.
(c) If within twenty-four hours of the shooting of an
animal under the provisions of this rule the owner of the
animal has not been ascertained, or having been ascertained and
notified, has not removed the carcase of the animal, such car-
case shall be deemed to be abandoned by the Owner and to be
the property of the Governor.
(d) If the Owner of any animal which has been shot at an
aerodrome under the provisions of these Regulations fails to
remove the carcase of such animal from the aerodrome within
twelve hours of the service of a notice upon him under para-
graph (b) of this rule, he shall be liable on summary convic-
tion to a fine not exceeding twenty-five dollars.

7 /
" 7 / ')i"_"'.
| LY ;







(e) The Governor may in his absolute discretion take any
steps he may deem expedient, and may authorise any person in
writing to take any such steps, for the preservation of the car-
case of any animal shot under the provisions of this rule
between the time of the shooting and the time of the removal
or the abandonment of such carcase by the Owner.

Made by the Governor in Council this 13th day of
February, 1957.
Ja. H. CARROTT,
Clerk of the Council.































Printed at the Government Printing Offioe, Antigna, Leeward Islands,
by E. M. BLAOKMAN, Government Printer.-By Authority.
1967.


7100159-500-3.57.


Price 4 cents.









VIRGIN ISLANDS.


STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS.

1957, No. 7.


Proclamation dated February 20, 1957, bringing into
operation the Land Acquisition Ordinance, 1957, (No.
4 of 1957).

BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COLONY
OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.

A PROCLAMATION.

G. P. ALLSEBROOK,
Administrator.

WHEREAS by section 35 of the Land Acquisition Ordi-
nance, 1957, it is provided that the said Ordinance shall come
into operation on a date to be appointed by the Governor by
proclamation published in the Gazette.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEOFFREY POLE ALLSEBROOK,
the Officer for the time being administering the Government of
the Colony of the Virgin Islands, do by this my proclamation
declare that the said Ordinance shall come into operation on the
28th day of February, 1957.
AND all Her fM.j.~sty's loving subjects in tih Colony of
the Virgin Islands and all others whom it may concern are
hereby required to take due notice hereof and give their ready
obedience accordingly.
GIVEN at the Administrator's Office at Tortola in
the Virgin Islands, this 20th day of February,
1957, and in the sixth year of Her Majesty's
reign.
GOD SAVE THE QUEE2,!

f' : / NTIGUA.
Printed at the Government Printing Office, Leeward Islands,
., / by E. M. BIACKMAN., Government Printer. By Authority.
1957.


47100487-520--3.57.


Price 3 cents.








VIRGIN ISLANDS.


STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS.
1957, No. 7A.


Proclamation dated February 22, 1957, bringing into
operation the Firearms Ordinance, 1956 (No. 1511956).


BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COLONY
OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.
A PROCLAMATION.
G. P. ALLSEBROOK,
Administrator.
WHEREAS by section 45 of the Firearms Ordinance,
1956, it is provided that the said Ordinance shall come into
operation on a date to be appointed by the Governor by procla-
mation published in the Gazette:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEOFFREY POLE ALLSEBROOK,
the Officer for the time being administering the Government of
the Colony of the Virgin Islands, do by this my proclamation
declare -that the said Ordinance shall come into operation on the
1st day of March, 1957.
AND all Her Majesty's loving subjects in the Colony of
the Virgin Islands and all others whom it may concern are
hereby required to take due notice hereof and give their ready
obedience accordingly.
GIVEN at the Administrator's Office at Tortola in
the Virgin Islands this 22nd day of February,
1957, and in the sixth year of Her Majesty's
reign.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!


/ ?" / Printed at the Government Printing Office. Antigna, Leeward Islands,
by E. M. BLACKMAN, Governmont Printer.-By Anthority.
1957.


47100313--520--3.57.


[ Pmice 3 cents. ]




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs