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














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/UF00076853/00187
 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: VID00187
Source Institution: 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 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
    Antigua, Statutory Rules and Orders, no. 37 of 1959: Colonial Fire Brigades Long Service Medal (Amendment) Regulations, 1959
        Page A-1
    Antigua, Statutory Rules and Orders, no. 38 of 1959: Colonial Police Long Service Medal (Amendment) Regulations, 1959
        Page B-1
Full Text





THy

ANTIGUA, MVIONTk






cubis A, ed by c/I uthorify.


TIM "SDA~i 2L'iit SEPT1CMiEI,11 195-9.


No/ices.

Notice is hereby .iv.ien pursuit. to
Section 30 of the Interpretation and
and General Clauses Act, 1955 (Lee-
ward Islands No. 12 of 1955) as
amended, that the Governor has been
pleased to change the title of the
following offices with effect from
the 1st day of January. 1957:-

"Assistant Adlminislrativ, Socr -
tary Virgin Islands to be
Administrative S9-cretary ":
"Certificated Teacher, (lass I to
be Graduate Teacher ";
"Certificated Teicli r, Class II"
to be "Non-Graduate Teacher
('lass I ";
Certificated Teacher, Class III"
to be Non Gr:tln;atc Teacher
Class II ";
Certificated Teacher, Class IV"
to be Non Graduate Teacher
Cliss IV ".

Administrator's Office,
Tortola,
British Virgin Islands,
17th September. 1959.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to
Section 30 of the Interpretation and
General Clauses Act, 1955 (Leeward
Islands No. 12 of 1955) as amended.
that the Governor has been pleased
to change the title of the following
offices with effect from the 1st day of
January, 1959-

Non-Gradnato Teachers, Class I
to Class IV" to be all entitled
Assistant Teacher Grade I ";
"Vocational Instructor Class II"
to be Home Economics Teach-
er ";
"Vocational Instructor Class III"
to be Handicraft Teacher "

Administrator's Office,
Tortola,
British Virgin Islands,
17th Septembr, 1959.

No. 82.

Appointments, transfers, etc., in
the public service, with effect from
the rates stated, are published for
general information:-

Montserrat.
BRAMBLE, D. H., certificated Teacher
Class II, Primary School, appoint-
ed Certificated Teacher Class I.
May 1
M.E. 288.


BRAMBLE, ID., appointed as PItty
Officer Class I. Aug. 1
M.E. 5!2).

CROSSLEY. K. E., appointed as Prison
Warder Grade II. Dec. 1, 1958.
I.E. 515.
CASSELL, Miss I. M., Probationary
Junior Clerk, Post Office, con-
firmed in appointment with effect
from r12th August. 1958.
M.E. 393.
CASSELL, Miss T. V., Probationary
Junior Clerk, Police Dept., con-
firmed in appointment with effect
from 1st May, 1959.
M.E. 445.
DEwAR, Mrs. D. I., Nursing Sister,
An\tigua, seconded to act as Matron
Glendon Hospital, Montserrat.


M.E. 524.

DUBLIN, Mrs. A. I. J
Prison Matron.
M.E. 525.


Apr. 28


., appointed as
May 15


DYER, Miss T., Probationary Junior
Clerk, Post Oltice confirmed in
appointment with effect from 5th
September, 1958.
M.E. 400.

EDGECOMBE. Miss M. L., Junior
Clerk, Library, seconded as tem-
pory Non-Graduate Assistant above
the first efficiency bar.
April 20.
M. E. 426

EDGECOMBE, Miss M. L.. Junior
Clerk, confirmed in appointment
with effect from 1st February 1959.
M. E. 426.

GREENAWAY, Miss L., uncertificated
teacher, Primary School, appointed
as Certificated teacher Class II.
Feb. 1.
M. E. 490.

GREENAWAY, J. H., Head Warder
H. M. Prison, appointed to act as
Prison Keeper. Sept. 10.
M.E. 398.

HIXON, P. C., Petty Officer Class II.
Electricity Ice & Cold Storage
Dept. appointed Junior Clerk.
Jan. 1.
M. E. 85

JEFFERS, Miss D. H., Probationary
Junior Clerk, Administration con-
firmed in appointment with effect
from 15th May, 1959.
M. E. 431.


LinuRD, C. W., Corporal of Police
transferred & appoint,.d Junior
OCl(rk, Public Works Department.
An 1.
M. E. 532

LEKE. Miss A. G., Junior Clerk, Hos-
pital, resigned appointment with
effect from 27th June, 1959.
M. E. 405.
PIPERI, Miss F. W. C., Probationary
Junior Clerk, Treasury confirmed
in appointment with effect from
Sth September, 1958.
M. E. 387.

PIPER Miss I. N., Certificated
Teacher Class II, Primary School
resigned appointment with effect
from 31st July, 1959.

RYNER, Miss B., uncertificated teach-
er appointed as certificated teach-
er Class II, Primary School.
Feb. 1.
M. E. 435.

SKERRIT, Miss M. E., nncertiticated
teacher, Primary School, appointed
as certificated teacher Class II.
Jan. 1.
M. E. 458.

SOUTHWELL, Miss S. C. E., Junior
Clerk, Secondary School. seconded
to temporary Graduate Assibtant
above the first efficiency bar.
April 16.
M.E. 327.

TUITT, T. W., acting Junior Clerk,
Public Works Dept. appointed as
Junior Clerk. Dec. 17, 1958.
M. E. 481

TAYLOR, Miss I., Senior C 1 e r k.
Post Office, appointed Principal,
Jan. 1.
M. E. 116.

WHITE, E. R., certificated teacher
Class I, Primary School, appointed
as Inspector of School. March 9.
M. E. 3.

WHITE, J. E., Apprentice Plumber,
appointed as Assistant W a t e r
Mechanic P. O. Class II. Feb. 1.

M. E. 498.

WOODING, Dr. D. C., appointed as
Medical Officer District III.
Dec. 24, 1958.
M. E. 509.

WILKINS, Miss C. E., appointed
temporary Junior Clerk, Secondary
School. May 1.
M. E. 327.


ac3 79 ~a'y
rr / a


VOL. IV.


No. 45.


~~ ~i~ ___








170 THE ANTIGUA, MONTSERRAT & VIRGIN ISLANDS GAZETTE [September 24, 1959


CONFIRMATION OF ORDINANCES.

No. 83.
The Secretary of State for the
Colonies has informed the Governor
that the power of dihallowance will
not be exercised in respect of the
undermentioned Ordinance:-

Antigua,
No. 7 of 1957, "The Beach Pro-
tection Ordinance, 1957."

No. 84.

The following Statutory Rules and
Orders are circulated with this
Gazette and form part thereof:-

Antigua.
No. 37 of 1959, "The Colonial
Fire Brigades Long Service Medal
(Amendment) Regulations, 1959."
1 pp. -'rice 5 cts.
No. 38 of 1959, "The Colonial
Police Long Service Medal (Amend-
ment) Regulatiins, 1959. "
1 pp. Pric" 5 cts.

In the Supreme Court of the
Windward Islands and
Leeward Island s
ANTIGUA CIRCUIT.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that there will be an ordinary sitting
of the Court in its higher jurisdiction
on Friday the 2nd day of October,
1959, at 9.30 a.m. when judgments in
the undermentioned cases will be
delivered:-
No. 20/195is
WINIFRED SARKIS
VS.
ABRAHAM AZIZ
No. 30/1958
V. E. B. NICHOLSON
',s.
CHARLOTTE C. JOHNSON
No. 28/1059
ALBERT E, FORD

THE ANTIGUA PRTNTERY LTD.
No. 36/19559
VICTOR BROWN

THE ATTORNEY GlENERAL
No. 45/1959
IRWING E. A. BARNES
vS.
ELFREDA DANIELS

Dated the 14th d;,y of September,
1959.
EVAN CREQUE,
Ag. Registrar,
RAINFALL FIGURES
Agricultural Department,
Antigua.


Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Aigust
To 19th Sept.


1958
0.92
0.66
1 22
2.01
7.79
13.16
3.95
3.13
3.04


23.77 31.04 25.36 35.87 2644


In the Supreme Oourt of the
Windward Islands and
Leeward Islands.
ANTIGUA CIRCUIT.
A. D. 1959.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that in pursuance of Rules made by
the Chief Justice under Section 16 of
the Leeward Islands and Windward
Islands (Courts) Order in Council,
1939, and duly approved as therein
provided on the 19th day of June,
1959, the Honourable puisne Judge
selected for the sitting of the Court
has appointed the day of the month
on which the ensuing Circuit Court
shall sit for the trial of Criminal and
Civil causes in the summary and
higher jurisdiction of the Court, and
the hearing of appeals from Magis-
trates as follows; that is to say:-

The Antigua Circuit on TUESDAY
the 6th day of October, 1959, at 9.30
o'clock in the forenoon.

Dated the 7th day of September,
1959.

EVAN CREQUE,
Ag. Registrar of the Supreme Court,
Antigua Circuit.


TRADE MARKS OFFICE,

TORTOLA, British Virgin Islands.

7th September, 1959.

D. & W. GIBBS LIMITED of
Hesketh House, Portman Square,
London, W.I., England, have applied
for Registration of one Trade Mark
consisting of the following;-






-, -





in Class 48, that is to say: A' All goods
included in Class 48 ".

Tho Applicants claim that the
Trade Mark is not in use in the Vir-
gin Islands by any other person or
persons to the hest of their know-
ledge, information and belief.

Any person may within three
months from the date of the first
appearance of this Advertisement in
the Antigua, Montserrat and Vir-
gin Islands Gazette, give notice in
duplicate at the Trade Marks Office,
Tortola, British Virgin Islands, of
opposition to registration of the said
Trade Mark.

G. A. REDHEAD,
Ag. Registrar of Trade Marks.


TRADE MARKS OFFICE,
ANTIGUA, 9th September, 1959.

A. & F. PEARS LIMITED of The
Soap Works, London Road, Isleworth
Middlesex, England have applied for
Registration of one Trade Mark con-
sisting of the following:-

GLORIA
in Class 48 in respect of all goods
included in Clase 48.

The Applicants claim that they have
used the said Trade Mark in respect
of the said goods in Antigua before the
date of their said Application.

Any person may within three
months from the date of the first
appearance of this Advertisement in
the Antigua, Montserrat and Virgin
Islands Gazette, give notice in dupli-
cate at the Trade Marks Office,
Antigua, of opposition to registration
of the said Trade Mark.

EVAN CREQUE,
Ag. Registrar of Trade Marks.


TRADE MARKS OFFICE,
MONTSERRAT, 10th September, 1959.

A. & F. PEARS LIMITED of
The Soap Works, London Road,
Isleworth, Middlesex, England have
applied for Registration of one Trade
Mark consisting of the following:

GLORIA
in Class 48, that is to say, Perfumery
(including toilet articles, preparations
for the teeth and hair and perfumed
soap).

The Applicants claim that the said
Trade Mark in respect of the said
goods is not in use in Montserrat by
any other person or persons before the
date of their said Application.

Any person may within three
months from the date of the first ap-
pearance of this Advertisement in the
" Antigua, Montserrat and Virgin
Islands Gazette," give notice in du-
plicate at the Trade Marks Office,
Montserrat of opposition of the said
Trade Mark.
D. F. JOHNSON,
Ag. Registrar of Trade Marks.


LAND TAX.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that the Land tax defaulters' list has
been received at the Provost Marshal's
Office and persons whose names
appear on this list are warned that
property for which taxes have not
been paid will be sold by public
auction in accordance with the Land
Tax Act No. 1 of 1947.

Dated the 22nd day of September,
1959.
EVAN CREQUE,
Ag. Provost Marshal







September 21, 195')] 'i HE ANTIGUA, MONTStERRAT & VIRGIN ISLANDS GAZETTE. 171
MONTSER 'RAT.

THE AID TO PIONEER iNI)USTRIES ORDINANCE, 1950.
NOTICE.
In accordance with provisions of subsection (2) of section 3 of the Aid to Pioneer Industries
Ordinance, notice is hereby given that, subject to the consideration of any objections which may be
received by him pursuant to this notice, the (Govet ior in Council proposes, under subsec'ion (1) of
section 3 of the said Ordinance to make an order in the form set out in the Schedu~l hereto.
2. Any person who objects to the making of such order is hereby invited to give notice in
writing of his objection and of the grounds on which ihe rli s in support thereof to the Clerk of the
Executive Council on or before the 28th day of Sepembe'r, 1!59.
GEORGE R. E. CABiT,
Clerk to the Executree ( council.

MONTSERRAT.

SCHEDULE.
STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS
1959 No.
THE AID TO PIONEER INDUSTRIES (PROCESSING OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES AND THE DISTRIBUTION
AND SALE THEREOF) ORDER, 1959, DATED MADE BY THE rGoVEIRNOR IN COUNCIL
UNDER SECTION 3(1) OF THE AID To PIONEER INDUSTRIES ORDINANCE, 1950 (No. 3 oF 1951).

1. This Order may be cited as the Aid to Pioneer Industries (Processing of Fruits and
Vegetables and the Distribution and Sale thereof) Order, 1959.
2. The Processing of Fruits and Vegetables is hereby declared to be a pioneer industry for
the purposes of ch, Aid to Pioneer Industries Ordinance and tomato paste is hereby declared to be.a
pioneer product for the said purposes.
Made by the Governor in Council this day of 195.
Clerk of the Council.


STATEMENT OF CURRENCY NOTES AND BRITISH CARIBBEAN COIN
BRITISH CARIBBEAN TERRITORIES (EASTERN GROUP) ON
Notes.


Average circulation during July, 1959:-
British Caribbean Currency
Demonetized Govt. notes
Total Average
British Caribbean Notes and Coins in
circulation on 1st September, 1959:-
Trinidad and Tobago
Barbados
British G(uia'na
Grenada
St. Vinc nt
St. Lucia
Dominica
Antigna
St. Kitts
Montserrat
Proof Set Coins
Total British Caribbean Notes and Coins
in circulation on 1st September, 1959
Demonetized Govt. Notes outstanding on 1st
Trinidad and Tobago
British Guiana
Barbados
Total demonetized Government notes
outstanding
Total circulation of British Caribbean notes ar
at 1st September, 1959
Headquarters,
British Caribbean Currency Board,
Treasury Chambers,
Port of Spain, Trinidad, IV.I.
Ref. No. 24/00087


$
73,860,250.00
1,019,088.00
$ 74,879,338.00


IN CIRCULATION IN THE
1st SEPTEMBER, 1959.
(Cins.
$
3,772,764.00

$ 3,772,764.00


35,472,478.00 1,625,021.00
7,436,225.00 561,325.00
18,388,936.50 804,785.00
3,660,100.00 184,700.00
754,400.00 103,750.00
970,000.00 133,200.00
2,014,400.00 109,750.00
3,114,300.00 125,600.00
1,589,600.00 122,900.00
250,505.00 2-1,150.00
1,870.00

$73,6Z0,944.50 $3,797,051.00
August, 1959:-
700,780.00
247,703.50
66,664.00

1,015,147.50
id coins
$74,666,092.00 $3,797,051.00

L. SPENCE,
Executive Comnmissiot r,
Br. Caribbean Currency Board.







172 THE ANTIGUA, MONTSERRAT & VIRGIN ISLANDS GAZETTE. [Septembear 2-!, 1959


IN THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION


CIVIL CASE No. 38/1958
Between:-


COLONY OF ANTIGUA.


RONALD CADMAN


and


C. .A HARNEY for plaintiff
C. E. FRANCIS for defendant.
Before Mr. Justice P. CECIL LEWIS


IONIE THOMAS


JUDGMENT
(lst June, 1959.)


LEWIS J.


In this action the plaintiff seeks to recover
possession of a piece of land situate at Fort
Road of which he is the owner and which is in
the occupation of the defendant.
The following chronological statement of
the facts gives the necessary background to this
action. In 1948 the plaintiff who is a Company
Director employed one WILLIAM THEODORE
THOMAS as a groom and handy man on his
premises. THOMAS was then a bachelor. The
plaintiff gave THOMAS a room in the yard of his
premises in which he lived during the time of
his employment with the plaintiff. This was a
part of the terms of TIHOMAS' employment.
In or about the year 1950 or 1951 THOMAs
married the defendant and left the room in the
'plaintiff's yard in which he was then living and
went to live in a house at Fort Road which he
rented.

Shortly after his marriage THOMAS wanted
to buy his own house and the plaintiff assisted
him in doing so. TnoMrs purchased a house at
Fort Road situated on land of one Barnabas.
In 1952 THOMas informed the plaintiff that
he was unhappy and wished to remove his
house from Barnabas' land and he asked the
plaintiff to allow him to place his house on a
piece of the plaintiff's land at Fort Road. The
plaintiff agreed and THOMAS accordingly erected
his house on the plaintiff's land which he
occupied rent-free. The plaintiff says that this
arrangement was in place of the previous
arrangement by which THOMAS occupied rent-
free the room on the plaintiff's premises.
On October 26th, 1955 the plaintiff and
THOMAS discussed the work which THOMAS
should do on the following day. This discussion
took place about 6 a.m. Later that same day
the plaintiff was informed by THOMAS'S nephew
that he had left by plane for the United King-
dom. This came as a shock to the plaintiff,
who, although he knew THOMAs was leaving
for the United Kingdom at some time, says,
that about a week previously THOMAS had


assured him he would not be leaving for the
United Kingdom until the spring 1956 and the
plaintiff had advised him to wait until the warm
weather arrived before going abroad. The
plaintiff says that THOMAS did not tell him
either on 26th October, 1855 or on any other
date that he proposed to leave the plaintiff's
service when he did. When THOMAS left thek
plaintiff's service the defendant was then living
in the house on the plaintiff's land and she is
still occupying this land. THOMAS has riot
returned to the plaintiff's employment and as
far as the evidence shows is still in the United
Kingdom.
Shortly after THOMAS .left for the United
Kingdom the plaintiff saw defendant and told
her to remove the house from his land. He
informed her of an alternative site on which she
could place her house and this was on land
belonging to one ATHILL at the Fort Roadi
The defendant told the plaintiff that she did not
like the site he suggested and was looking for a
spot in the Villa Area to which she could
remove her house. The defendant has not in
fact removed her house from plaintiff's land and
is still in occupation thereof.

In her evidence the defendant admits that
she has been living on the plaintiff's land since
26th September, 1952 which was the date on
which her husband's house was erected on the
land. She also admits that she is still in
occupation of the said land. She states further
that when her husband's house was removed to
the plaintiff's land her husband was in the
plaintiff's employment. After her 1,usband left
for the United Kingdom the defendant received
a letter from the plaintiff addressed to her
husband at Fort Road, and demanding posses-
sion of his land. The defendant's evidence on
this issue reads thus: the plaintiff next came to
my house one afternoon and bad a conver-ation
with me. The plaintiff asked me if I had not
got anywhere to put my house. I told him no, I
had found nowhere to put my house. The
plaintiff said that he could help me. I told him
he could not help me now as he had sent me a.


Defendant.


1'laintiff






September 24, 1959 ] TH E ANTIGUA, MONTSERRAT & VIRGIN ISLANDS GAZETTE. 173


notice to leave. The notice to which I refer is
letter from plaintiff dated 26th December, 1955.
I told plaintiff I did not want his help and he left
the house. The plaintiff did make various sug-
gestious to me as to where 1 could get alternative
sit*LNfia*hisptp se. The. house is my husband's
property. A week after the plaintiffs visit I
received a notice from his solicitors. I produce
this notice. Notice admitted as Exhibit "
ie time I received this notice my husband
iin-,.the United Kingdom. There were two
brought by the plaintiff in the Magistrate's
t ;against my husband for possession of
ises but they were dismissed. My husband
11 'in the United Kingdom and I am still
ng on plaintiff's land in my husband's
diQse." For the defendant it was contended
that she was not a trespasser but "at worst" a
tenant at will of the plaintiff and as such her
tenancy could not be determined unless a notice
-to quit had been addressed to her. It was
stated also that her husband was a tenant at
,will of the plaintiff and as she lived with him
in his house on the plaintiff's land she became a
tenant at will of the plaintiff also. In light of
*this submission it becomes necessary to enquire
what interest, if any, the defendant's husband
had in the plaintiff's premises. The husband's
positions was, to my mind, that of a errant in
Occupation of premises of his master in the
course of his employ ment. He was required as
part of his contract of service in the first
instance to occupy a room in his master's
premises for the more convenient performance
of his duties. Ils subsequent occupation of the
plaintiff's land when he erected his house
thereon with the plaintiff's consent was accord-
ing to the plaintift merely a continuation of the
previous arrangement, and he would therefore
not become a tenant of the plaintiff nor would
h~e ai'cqire ary estate in the plantiff's land.
The law on this subject is clearly stated in the
following paragraph which appears in Hill <
Ji-dmal,'.- Lawi or Land/iurd and Tenaiil, I Ith
:E]diticn, pa'e 17, paragraph 9; in which it is
-stated that when a servant. is in occupation
ff premises of his master in the course of his
employment, his possession is treated as that of
the nimister and the relationship of landlord and
tenant is not created between the parties. The
test is whether the occupation is subservient
and necessary to the service, and the question
whether this test is satisfied has to be deter-
mined by a consideration of the substance of
the agreement and not by the use of particular
terms. If this tet is satisfied, then while the
servant is commonly called a service tenant he
is.: really in the position of a licensee and
p.ss-ession can be required at any itomncnt,
though the servant will lhaiv a remedy on the
tFidract of service, if it is terminated impro-
perly."
Ir. my view the defendant's husband was
a mere licensee and not a tenant at will of the
plaintiff and as such his right to occupy the


plaintiff's land ceased immediately on the de-
termination of his service with the plaintiff.
The defendant's husband himself determined
his service with the plaintiff and ceased to
occupy the premises, on the 26th day of
October, 1955 when he left the Colony for the
United Kingdom. i
The position of a servant who occupies his
master's premises in the course of his employ-
ment is well illustrated by the case of Hemmings
and Wife v. The Stoke Poqes Golf Club Ltd.
(1920) 1 K. B. 720. The facts of this case were
that the plaintiff and his wife lived in a cottage
belonging to the defendants. The man was in
the defendant's service and was required by
them to live in the cottage as part of his service
and for the performance of his duties. He left
the defendant's service but refused to give up
the cottage after notice to quit had been duly
served on him. The plaintiffs were ejected on
the defendant's instructions, no more force
being used than was necessary for the purpose.
On an action by the plaintiffs for assault,
battery and trespass, it was held that the
defendants were not liable, their right of entry
being a defence to civil proceedings for the acts
complained of.
In his judgment DUKE L. J. said (at page
751) "in my view of the evidence in the
present case, however, the occupation of the
plaintiffs was that of mere trespassers, as
Mr. HENiN COLLINs on their behalf asserted.
The service had been for some time at an end,
and the holding was adverse as against the
defendant company. "
This is exactly the position here. In fact
the defendant's position in this case is much
weaker than that of Mrs. HEMMINGS in the case
quoted above, for in this case not only did the
defendant's husband voluntarily terminate his
service with plaintiff, but he simultaneously
vacated the premises.. The defendant should
have left the premises when her husband did,
but her insistence on remaining in occupation
constitutes her a trespasser. She had no right
to remain in possession of the plaintiff's
premises without his consent and on the evi-
dence it is clear that no consent was ever given
to her to remain. She is a mere trespasser and
the plaintiff is entitled to the order which
he seeks.
This is enough to dispose of the case, but
as several other sulbmissions were made on the
defendant's behalf by her counsel, I will never-
theless examine them.

It was submitted that because the defendant
lived in the house with her husband, she ipsa
facto became a tenant at will of the plaintiff.
If by this argument it is intended to suggest
that the plaintiff either expressly or impliedly
permitted the defendant to occupy his premises
after her husband left the plaintiffs service and.







174 THE ANTIGUA, MONTSERRAT & VIRGIN ISL:; :DS GAZETTE [September 24, 1959'


vacated the premises, then I feel bound to state
that the evidence does not support a;ny such
suggestion. On the contrary, the evidence on
this point, which is admitted by the defendant,
is clearly to the opposite effect. The plaintiff
undoubtly told the defendant to remove the
house from his land and he did this, as the
defendant admits, shortly after her husband left
for the United Kingdom. The phdutiff sug-
gested to the defendant alternative sites on
which she could re-erect her house, but she
refused to remove the house and rejected the
plaintiff's offer of assistance. How can it be
said in such circumstances that the defendant
is in occupation of the plaintiff's land with his
consent? She clearly is not and I reject the
the submission that she is a tenant at will of
the plaintiff.
If on the other hand the argum ent is intended
to suggest that the defendant is in possession
as a tenant at will through her husband, then
the reply to this contention is that her husband
was never a tenant of the pli ilt:'&' It a mere
licensee and so could not create a tenancy of
any sort of which his wife could claim to be his
successor in title. The defendant's position is
that she occupied the land with her husband
merely because she was his wife and the re-
lationship of landlord and tenant was never
intended to be created between herself and the
plaintiff, nor did such a relationship ever come
into being.
If it is assumed that the defendant occupied
the premises as the plaintiff's licensee (though on
the facts such an assumption could not in my opin-
ion be justified) her licence was revoked and the
revocation became operative when she was told by
the plaintiff to remove her house from his premises
and in the circumstances all that the defendant was
entitled to was a reasonable time for such removal.
See Mi4nister of Health v Bellotti and Minister of'
Health v. Holliday (1944) 1 All E. R. 238. On
the facts of this case the defendant has had abun-
dant time within which to remove her house from
the pi!intiff's land. She was told to do so shortly
after her husband left the premises in October
1955. This is now the year 1959. She has there-
fore had more than three years in which to find an
alternative site for her house and consequently she
cannot complain even if she were a licensee as to
the reasonableness of the time allowed to her for
removing her house.
It is impossible on any view of the facts to
hold that the defendant was either a tenant at will
of the plaintiff or that she occupied his land by his
licensee. She is a mere trespasser.
A further argument adduced by counsel for
the defendant on the assumption that she was a
tenant at will of the plaintiff was that her tenancy
had not validly been determined because no notice
to quit as required by Section 3 of the Small Ten-
ants Act, Chapter 68 of the Federal Acts of the
Leeward Islands 1927 had nut been served on her.


It is admitted that no such notice was served
on the defendant, although she admits that she
received two written communications addressed to
her husband after he had left the Colony, in which
possession of the premises was demanded by or on
behalf of the plaintiff.
The question is this: Is a notice to quit
under Section 3 of the Act an essential prerequisite
for the determination of the tenancies mentioned in
this section ? The tenancies referred to in the
section are tenancies at will and tenancies for any
term not exceeding seven years in which the ten-
ant is liable to pay either no rent at all or to pay a
rent not exceeding $200 per annum. In my opin-
ion a notice to quit is not essential for the valid
determination of these tenancies. The contrary
opinion is based on a misreading of section 3 and
entirely ignores the provisions of section 4 which
envisage the determination of such tenancies
otherwise than by notice to quit. "

Section 3 cointenmplates three methods by
which such tenancies may cease to exist. Firstly,
they may have ended, secontly they may have been
duly determined by notice to quit as hereinafter
prescribed, and thirdly they may have been duly
determined "otherwise. "

An example of the first method of deternmina-
tion would occur, for example, in the case of a
tenancy for a fixed period of years, by the expira-
tion of tlie period of the tenancy where the tenancy
agreement is silent on the question of notice; and
in the case of a tenancy at will, by the tenant
voluntarily yielding up possession to the landlord.
The second method of determination by notice to
quit would occur in the case where the tenancy
agreement provides for the giving of notice for the
purpose of determinating the tenancy, or in the
case where there is a weekly, monthly or other
periodic tenancy. In this latter type of tenancy,
such tenancies must in the absence of agreement to
the contrary be determined by a notice to quit
equivalent to the period of the tenancy and expir-
ing at the end of any current period of the tenancy.
In such cases the appropriate notice to quit must
be served and this is the notice mentioned in sec-
tion 3 of the Act as being "hereinafter prescribed,"
and the form of such notice is shown in the first
notice appearing in the First Schedule to the Act.
The words "hereinafter prescribed" in section
3 qualify the words "notice to quit" in that sec-
tion, and obviously cannot refer to the notice to
quit mentioned in section 4 which is only applicable
when a tenant holds over after the determination
of his tenancy otherwise than by a notice to quit
under section 3. Thirdly, the tenancies referred to
in section 3 may he determined "otherwise", i.e.
in some manner other than by coming to an end by
effluxion of time according to the first method of
determination, or, by being determined by notice to
quit as contemplated by the second method.
The conclusion that a tenancy of the type
referred to in section 3 may be terminated without
notice to quit under that section is clearly envis-







September 24. 19,J] THE ANTIGUA, MONTSERRAT & VIRGIN ISLANDS GAZETTE 173


:aged by the language of section 4 which provides
that "where a person is holding over whose tenan-
cy has ended or been determined otherwise than by
a notice to quit, the landlord may cause a notice in
writing to be served upon such person as aforesaid
calling u-pon him to quit and deliver up possession
*of the premises held over by him within seven days
of the service of such notice as aforesaid." The
implication in the words underlined above is ines-
capable. They mean that a tenancy at will which
is one of the tenancies referred to in section 3 may
be determined without notice to quit and if in such
a case the tenant continues to hold over, the notice
required by section 4.will have to be served on
him and the procedure set out in the succeeding
sections of the Act will then be invoked if neces-
aary, to evict him.
How then is a tenancy at will determinable
otherwise than coming to an end or by notice to
.quit? The answer to this question is to be found
in the following quotation from Hill and Redman's
Law of Landlord and Tenant, I lth Edition, page
24 at paragraph 12 which deals with the determin-
ation of tenancies at will. The parapraph reads:
"A tenancy at will is determinable
by either party on his expressly or im-
pliedly initiating to the other his wish
that the tenancy should be at an end.
But until such intimation the tenant is
lawfully in possession, and, accordingly,
the landload cannot recover the premises
in an action for recovery of land without
a previous demand of possession or other
determination of the tenancy................"
"Anything which amounts to a demand
of possession, 'although not expressed in
precise and formal language is sufficient
< to indicate the determination of the land-
lord's will."
I interrupt the quotation here to remark that
the authority quoted for this proposition is Doed
Price v Price (1832) 9 Bing 356. 358: reported in
131 English Report 649, in which it was held that
the words unless you pay me what you owe me,
I, shall take immediate measures to recover posses-
sion of the property addressed to a tenant at will
by the party entitled in feewere sufficient to indi-
The quotation continues:
"Thus the landlord may expressly demand
possession, or state that the tenant is in against
his will, or send for the keys "-all these are ex-
amples of the manner in which a landlord may in-
dicate the determination of his will and so bring
the tenancy to an end without previous notice to
quit, and numerous authorities are quoted in the
notes to the paragraph in support of these exam-
ples. The quotation continues as follows:
"and if the notice states terms and
'intimates that if 'eh'ey ire rnit accepted
the landlord will lake steps to recover the
1i' is.s, :and the terms are rejIcted, this
is a sufficient notice to determine the
tenancy (Doe d. Price v. Price. supra,


Fox v. Hunter-Paterson, (1948) 2 All
E. R. 813; 2nd Digest Supp. A fortiori,
the bringing of ejectment proceedings
determines the tenancy Dosses v. Doed.
East India Co. (1869). 1 L. T. 345; 31
Digest 36, 1846.
The tenancy is impliedly determined
by the landlord when he does any act on
the premises which is inconsistent with
the continuance of the tenancy; for ex-
ample, when he re-enters to take posses-
sion, or puts in a new tenant, or cuts
down trees or carries away stone, the
trees and stone not being excepted from
the demise; antd also when he does an act
off the premises which is inconsistent
with the tenancy, or grants a lease of the
premises to commence forthwith.........'*
And as regards acts of the tenant himself
which may determine the tenancy and so make it
notice to quit unnecessary the authors say this: "A
mere notice by the tenant to determine the tenancy
at will is not effectual unless he actually gives up
possession. The tenancy is impliedly determined
by the tenant when he usurps the rights of the
landlord, as when he cuts down timber trees or
pulls down houses, or when he assigns or underlets
the premises, and such assignment or underletting
comes to the knowledge of the landlord." (page 24,
1 bid.)
It is therefore clear from the above quotations
that a landlord may expressly determine a tenancy
at will without giving a formal notice to quit, by
intimating to his tenant his wish that the tenancy
should be at an end, and he may do this by means
of any act which amounts to demand of possession
sufficient to indicate the determination of his will,
He may also without notice impliedly terminate the
tenancy by doing on the premises any act which is
inconsistent with the continuance of the tenancy,
The tenant on his part determines the tenant
by yielding ip possession of the premises to the
landlord; and if the tenant usurps the landlord's
rights, e.g. by assigning or underletting the premi-
ses and the landlord becomes aware of this the
tenancy is impliedly determined by the tenant.
After such determination of the tenancy any act of
the landlord showing an intention to take possess
sion is sufficient to revest the possession in him so
that the tenant becomes a trespasser and may be
ejected without notice.
The defendant is accordingly ordered to deli-
ver up possession of the premises to the plaintiff
not later than the 30th day of June, 1959 and to
pay the plaintiff the sum of $30.96, the costs of
this action.

The plaintiff having in his evidence abandoned
his claim for use and occupation of the premises,
no order will be made in respect of this head of his
claim.-


1st June, 1959.


P. CECIL LEWIS,
Puisne Judge.







176 THE ANTIGUA, MONTSERRAT & VIRGIN ISLANDS GAZETTE,


Hurrican Pr,crautions, 1959.
1. At the beginning ol' the ILurricane Season the public are advised to take precautions
to safeguard their homes and other jpropJrty in the event of a storm. During a hurricane the
central electricity supply will be turned off. and every household should therefore be provided with
a hurricane lantern or a-i ligihit (,or ) rrerably with hoth)I) which should be checked regularly
and kept in working order th:r ughout t ue hlrric ml. season.
2. Owners of barometers should take readings daily at 10 a.m., 4 p.m. and 10 p.m.
Any change lower tha. the usual di ,r:ul one of 0-10 inch should be regarded with suspicion.
3. The masters or agen' s iof vessls if in doubt should communicate with the Harbour
Master for information.
4. When barring up a Ihose, on indication of bad weather, begin with the side facing
the direction of the prevailing wi-d, which varies from North West to North East. Should the
centre of a storm pass over the island there will be a short period of calm during which the
Northern side of the building could be opened up and the Southern and Westerly sides closed,
Very often there is no calm, and under such circumstances it is wise to have everything securely
fastened.
5. The United States Weather Bureau at 'an Juan,, iuerto Rico, issues regular weather
reports for the Eastern Caribbean which are broadcast in Spanish and English daily throughout the
hurricane season by several radio stations in Puerto L.ico.

Storm Warning Signals.
AT DAY.
The following signals displayed at the Harbour Master's Office, Goat Hill, Ottos Hill,
(Michael's Mount) Police Headquarters and other Police stations in the Island
denote the approach of disturbed weather:-
A. A RED FLA(G with black square in centre means Tropical disturbance reported;
likely to affect island of Antigua-CAUTION ADVISED.
B. TWO RED FLAGS, with black squares in centre-HURRICANE SIGNAL-
DANGER EXPECTED.
AT NIGHT.
A. TWO DETONATING ROCKETS will be Fired from the Harbour Master's Office
to warn shipping.
B. A RED LIGHT will be displayed at Police Stations
DAY & NIGHT.
The Police will go through St. John's and Villages sounding their whistles.
Telephone Exchanges will inform subscribers. After a hurricane warning has been
received the news will be broadcast by Radio Antigua (3.255 megacycles; 92.16
metres) at regular intervals:-9 a.m., 5 p.m. and more often if necessary.
Administrator's Ofice,
St. John's, Antigua.
21st July, 1959.
fef. No. A, 52/6.


















Ptintel at the Gov nment Printing Office, Antigua, Leeward Islands,
by EARL PIGOTT, Goryement Printer.-By Authority.
1969.
[Price 33 gents]


[Septe~mber 24, 1U159








ANTIGUA.

STATUTORY RULES & ORDERS.
1959, No. 37.


THE COLONIAL FIRE BRIGADES LONG SERVICE MEDAL
(AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1959.


1. Short Title. These Regulations may be cited as the
Colonial Fire Brigades Long Service Medal (Amendment) Reg-
ulations, 1959, and shall be read as one with the Colonial Fire
Brigades Long Service Medal Regulations, 1958 (S. R. & O.
1958, No. 33) hereinafter called the Principal Regulations.

2. Amendment of Paragraphs 5 and 6 of
the Principal Regulations. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the
Principal Regulations are hereby amended by inserting the
words_" or Officer Adminintering the Government" immediately
after the words the Governor wherever the latter occur in
the said paragraphs.

Made by the Governor under the Authority of the Royal
Warrant dated 21st March, 1956, this 26th day of August,
1959.
A. T. WILLIAMS,
Governor,













Printed at the Government Printing Offioo Antigua, Leeward Islannd,
by EARL PIGOTT. Government Printer.-By Authority.
1959


[Price 5 cents.]


530-9.59.









ANTIGUA

STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS.
1959, No. 38.


THE COLONIAL POLICE LONG SERVICE MEDAL (AMENDMENT)
REGULATIONS, 1959.


1. Short Title. These Regularions may be cited as
the Colonial Police Long Service Medal (Amendment) Regula-
tions, 1959, and shall be read as one with the Colonial Police
Long Service Medal Regulations, 1958 (S. R. & 0. 1958,
No. 34) hereinafter called the Principal Regulations.

2. Amendment of Paragraphs 5 and 6 of
the Principal Regulations. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the
Principal Regulations are hereby amended by inserting the
words" or Officer Administering the Government" immediately
after the words "the Governor" wherever the latter occur in'
the said paragraphs.

Made by the Governor under the Authority of the Royal
Warrant dated 21st March, 1956, this 26th day of August,
1959.
A. T. WILLIAMS,
Governor.













Printed at the Government Printing Office, Antigua. Leeward Islands.
by EARL PIGOTT, Government Printer.-By Anthority.
1959.


530-9.59.


FPrice 5 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