27th February, 1950.
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.
ENTRIES for the Matriculation Examina.
tion, which takes place next June. should
reach this office not later than the llth of
March, together with the Treasury receipt
for two and one half guineas as examina-
The local fee, payable on the first day-
of the examination, will be computed at
------- M*OD A 4, ----
Rub Mligieb bp 69utbo ritN
ROSEAU, MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1950.
the rate of one guinea per day and will be
borne proportionately by candidates.
(Sgd.) J. HAMILTON MAURICE,
THE following persons have been ap-
pointed under Sectibn 4 (2) of the Vehicles
and Road Traffic Ordinance No. 21 of 1949
as (a) Licensing Officer and (b) Examin.
ing Officer of the Colony.
Licensing Officer Inspecter R E Hill
Examining Officer-Sergeant Jos. Burke
EDW. M. FELIX,
Acting Superiniendent of Police.
9th February, 1950.
ADDITIONAL LIST OF LICENSED PRODUCE DEALERS (DISTRICT "E")
No. Name Place of Wusiness Date Issued
19 Joseph Astaphan St. Joseph (M. S. Remain's) 24. 10. 49
20 Joseph Astaphan. do (C. J. Prosper's) 4. 11. 49
21 heresa Joseph Coulibistrie 18. 11. 49
22 John Andrew Great Marlborough St.. 21. 11. 49
23 T. D. Shillingford St. Joseph 2. 12. 49
24 -do.- York Valley Estate 2. 12. 49
25 Harry Joseph Coulibistrie 21. 1. 50
26 William Florant Mahaut 21. 1.50
27 (Hon.) H. D. Shillingford Batalie 23. 1. 50.
'28 Harold Shillingford Mahaut 23. 1. 50
29 Holeman Shillingford Coulibistrie 23. 1. 50
30 A. A. Baron & Co. Old Street 23. 1. 50
31 Norma Charles St. Joseph 23. 1. 50
32 C. G. Phillip Mahaut 23. 1. 50
33 D/ca. Caribbean Products Co. Bath Road, Roseau 24.
A E. L. ST. BERNARD.
IMagietruate Dietrict ."
3 ~291 '1 ~
53 OFFICIAL GAMETTE, MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1950.
In the Court of Summary Jurisdiction of
SUITS No. 27 of 1949 and 28/1949
VICTOR ADDISON BLANCHARD,
JOHN BAPTISTE REMY,
VICTOR ADDISON BLANCHARD,
Before Mr. Justice A. V. Crane, Paisnc Judge.
C. A. H. Dupigny for Plaintiff.
G. A. James for Defendants.
THE plaintiff is the registered proprietor of a parcel of land at Durham
in the parish of Saint George containing approximately twenty-five acres.
His certificate of title defines the land as that delineated and set forth on a
plan thereof by Chas. A. Pinard, Licensed Surveyor, attached thereto.
Each defendant is occupying a parcel of land which, I find, falls within the
boundaries of the land delineated on the said plan. They both plead in de-
fence that they acquired the said respective parcels prior to the issue of the
certificate of title to the plaintiff on the 11th day of June. 1949, and that as
they are the owners of those parcels of land the plaintiff has no right to the
possession of them.
I find from the evidence that the two parcels of land claimed and occu-
pied by the defendants are parts of the land delineated and set forth on the
planattached to the plaintiff's certificate of title. I must, therefore, decide
as a question of law whether the defendants can set up the defence that
they are the true owners of the parcels of land occupied by them. Section
8 of the Title by Registration Act (Ch. 99) provides as follows :
All certificates of title granted under this Acr and all noting of
mortgages and encumbrances on the same'shall be indefeasible."
Tne term indefeasiblee" as defined or interpreted in the First Sche-
dule to the Act means that a certificate of title issued unoer the Act cannot
be challenged in any Court of law on the ground that s me person other
than the registered proprietor is the true owner of the land therein set forth,
except on the ground of fraud connected with the issue of the certificate of
title or on the ground that the title of the registered propriet wr had been
superseded by a title acquired under the Real Property Limitation Act by
the person making the challenge. The Act continues to state that the Gov-
ernment, subject to the exceptions above mentioned und-rtakes to maintain
the title in the favour of the registered proprietor, leaving any one justly
aggrieved by the issue of the certificate to bring an action for money dam-
ages against the Government. This laboured description of the rights of a
registered proprietor and of parties aggrieved by the issue of a certificate of
title, has, in my opinion, the following legal effect. After a certificate of
title has been regularly issued, all prior titles to the land described therein
are destroyed and no one can set up any such title against that of the regis-
tered proprietor named in the Certificate. All titles, interests and rights,
whether arising from deeds, long possession, statues of limitation or other-
wise howsoever, existing at the date of-the issue of the Certificate, except
such as are preserved by noting on the Certificate, ard forever lost Title
to, interests in and rights over the land comprised in a Certificate of Title may,
indeed, arise subsequent to the issue thereof. The Act itself mentions the
case of a title arising under the Real Property Limitation Act, apparently
the right given to a person in possession of land for twelve years. Again,
throughout the definition of the term indefeasiblee," the fact is stressed
that fraud connected with the issue of the certificate would open the ques-
OFFICIAL GAZETTE, MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1950 5
tion of the title of the registered proprietor. These are the only two grounds
on which the title of a registered proprietor can be called in question. It
is quite possible that a Certificate may be attacked on the ground that it
ought not to have been issued because the statutory formalities were not
duly complied with. But no such question arises in these cases. Here,
neither of these two statutory exceptions to the absolute title of the
registered proprieior appears-fraud or subs quent title under the Real
Property Limitation Act Therefore, if the defendants at the time of the
issue of the Certificate had even the best title to the parcels of land in ques-
tion, it no longer exists. The State warrants the title of the registered
proprietor and is prepared to.defend it against all comers, subject to the
compensation of persons whose rights have been unjustly destroyed. It is
conceivable that the State would be liable to pay for tne error of judgment
on the law or the mistake or carelessness of an official which led to the loss
unjustifiably of the land of an aggrieved person.
Mr. James cited sections 140 and 141 of the Act as the authority for his
submission that the Court could give directions to the Registrar of Titles to
cancel or correct a Certificate of Title. Section 140 gives power to the Re-
gistrar to call in a Certificate of Title in certain circumstances. Section 141.
which is complementary to section 140, empowers the Court by decree or
order, either on an application by the Registrar or in any proceeding, to
direct the Registra- of Titles to cancel, correct, substitute or issue any Cer-
tificate of l title. This power of the Court exists for dealing with Certificates
on grounds available under the law for questioning these titles, e g. fraud.
subsequent title acquired under the Real Property Limitation Act, or proba-
bly failure to comply with the basic formalities for issuing a certificate.
These sections of the Act do not empower the Court to hold an enquiry into
titles to land existing prior to the issue of the Certificate and to amend or
rectify the Certificate.
This all points to the necessity for the most careful examination of the
title of an applicant for a First Certificate of Title. The tit'e is a state-
guaranteed one, and compensation may have to be paid to persons aggrieved
through the negligence of official's The formalities required in proof of the
applicant's title under section 12 of the Act as to giving notice to adjoining
occupiers and the publication of the application must be rigidly complied
with because of the effect of the issue of a Certificate of Title. Very often
not sufficient care is taken to put in the proper documents and old plans
which show conditions on the land long since changed are filed for attach-
ment to a Certificate of Title. The Registry need to exert very great vigil-
ance over these matters before submitting requests for irst Certificates to
On, the facts of the case, so far as the defendant John Baptist Remy is
concerned, he claims through one Josephine Danglar. Her title begins with
a will of Stephen Bell dated 18th April 1877 by which he purports to devise
to her (Danglar) certain land at Morne St. Louis. All the evidence on the
defendant Remy's case is that Danglar sold a portion of the Mount St. Louis
land to him (Remy). There is no prop-r evidence identifying the piece of
land claimed by the defendant Remy as part of Morne ot. Louis, or Morne
St. Louis with the Durham Estate referred to in the certificate of title. In
any case the Act puts the defendant out of Court, he himself admitting that
the parcel claimed by him falls inside the plaintiff's boundaries.
As regards the defendant Matthew, the parcel of land which he occu-
pies also falls within the boundaries of the plaintiff's land and his right,
title or interest is alleged to have existed at the date or the issue of the
plaintiff's Certificate of Title. In law, therefore, if even he had title then
he has none now. His occupation began as successor of his father who was
tenant to one Louisa De Belges. He himself paid rent and there is nothing
to show that he had adverse and undisturbed possession of any portion of
the land for thirty years or even for twelve years.
On these grounds, I order that the Plaintiff recover against the defen-
dants severally the two parcels of land in question and tnac a writ of pos-
session be issued to the Sheriff in each case, after the expiration of three
months from this day to put the plaintiff on the land which the defendants
are severally occupying unless before the expiration of that period the de-
fendants vacate the said parcels, and that the de endants pay 2. 10. 0
damages each to plaintiff for trespass and the costs of the pro eedins
5. 11. to be paid by eaco defendant.
METEOROLOGICAL REGISTER KEPT AT BOTANIC GARDENS, DOMINICA.
Jan. 1 Sun
,, 10 Tues.
,, 12 Thu-s
,, 14 Sat.
,, 17 Tues.
19 ) Thurs.
9am. 3p m. 9a.m. 3p.m.
9a.m. 3 p m. Max'm.
Reduced to 32 Fh.
and Sea Level. Rainfall.
9am. 3 p.m.
29.91 29 90 .18
29.95 29 94 1.14
29.96 29.90 .09
29.96 29.85 .01
3001 29.94 .04
30.05 30.00 .V0
30 06 30,00 .13
80.05 29.95 .00
30.05 29 95 .32
30.05 29.94 .09
30.01 29..95 .00
30.01 29.95 .22
30.01 29 95 .49
30.01 29.95 .28
29.95 29.90 .23
'9.95 29.94 .27
30.16 30.01 1.74
30.06 30 01 .83
29.98 29 95 .44
29.98 29 87 .03
29.98 29 90 .50
Rainfall for the Rainfall for the
Year 1950. Year 1949.
Mths. Ins. Pts. Mths. Ins. Pts.