THE LEEWARD )t1f
Sublisetli bT 2 utborit9.
VOL. LXXVIX. THURSDAY, 21sT JUNE, 1951.
By virtue of the powers vested in
him by Section 3 of the Telecommu-
nications Act, No. 13 of 1,49. His
Excellency has been pleased to
appoint the following as Telecommu-
nications Officers in the several
(a) in the Presidencies of St.
and the Virgin Islands, the officer
for the time being performing the
duties of Treasurer;
(b) in the Presidency of Antigua-
Mr. C. E. DE SILVIA.
Colonial Secretary's Office,
19th June, 1951.
Ref. No. 75/rl00i1.
It is notified for general informa-
tion that under the United States
Technical Cooperation Programme
and in Cooperation with the Govern-
ment of Puerto Rico a project has
been approved for the training of
students from the Caribbean Area at
the Metropolitan Vocation School in
Puerto Rico. Under this scheme 30
scholarships with financial aid will
be granted to applicants from the
British, French and Netherland
islands of the Caribbean.
Students wishing to apply for these
scholarships must present a high
school diploma or its equivalent,
must be over 16 years of age and
must have a working knowledge of
Spanish as all courses are conducted
in this language. They must also
have some experience in the subject
they wish to study.
The courses offered are as
4 14 97.6
Applications should be sent directly
to the Secretary General of the Carib-
bean Commission but students who
comply with the above conditions
and intend to make application for a
scholarship should call at the Admin-
istrator's Office where further parti-
culars will be explained to them.
18th June, 1951.
Ref. No. A. 7655.
The following Ordinance is circula-
ted with this Gazette and forms part
No. 1 of 1951, "The Public Meet-
in~l and Processions Ordinance,
In the Supreme Court of the
Windward Islands and
SAINT CHRISTOPHER CIRCUIT.
NOTICE is hereby given that in
pursuance of rules made by the Chief
Justice under Section 16 of tlhe
Windward Islands and Leeward
Islands (Courts) Order-in-Council,
1939, and duly approved as therein
provided on the 16th (lay of October,
A.D. 1941, His Honour the Chief
Justice selected for the sitting of the
Court in the Saint Christopher Circuit
has appointed the day of the month
on which the ensuing Circuit Court
shall sit as follows, that is to say:
The Saint Christopher Circuit on
Tuesday, the 17th day of July, 1951,
at 10 o'clock in the forenoon.
Dated the 12th day of June, 1951.
D. S. BROOKS,
Registrar of the Supreme Court.
Leeward Islands Gazette.
It is notified for general inforna-
tion that, owing to the great increase
in the cost of paper and other printing
materials, it is necessary to increase
the rate of subscription.
The new rates will be as follows:-
$6.00 per annum (British
$7.20 per annum (Foreign,
Commencing from 1st July, 1951,
the new rates will apply to persons
not listed at present as subscribers,
and from 1st January, 1952, the rates
will be applicable to all subscribers.
Subscribers and intending sub-
scribers are directed to note that
subscriptions are pay;ible in advance,
and are therefore reqnusted to pay
the respective amount well in advance
so as to insure despatch to them of
the desired issues.
All amounts should be made pay-
Government Printing Office,
Supt. of Trinting Office.
Central Experiment Station,
1947. 1948. 1949. 1950. 1951
January 3'97 2'82 1'50 5"41 3'60
February '57 '57 2"07 2-52 1 88
*59 I89 5'52 1'58 1'09
ti7 '9 3'54 2'44 2'16
3'34 2o80 1 98 20H6 10-54
June 16th '88 2'03 I'S 1103 1'39
1002 1070o 15-79 1504 20'66
THE LEEWARD ISLANDS GAZETTE.
1951 F. No. 14
In the Supreme Court of the Windward Islands and
QUIN FARARA Plaintiff
VEIE CORNWALL BIRD, LIONEL HURST,
LEVI JOSEPH, JOHN IRELAND and
RANDOLPH LEWIS Defendants.
This is a motion by tile plaintiff that the defendants, their servants or agents may be restrain-
ed bv injunction until the trial of this action or further order from watching and besetting the residence
of the plaintiff situate on the Factory Road in the Parish of Saint John and also the business place of
the plaintiff situate at the corner of Corn Alley and Long Street in the City of Saint John.
The plaintiff is a merchant doing business in the City of Saint John and the defendants
officers and/or members of the Antigua Trades and Labour Union a duly registered Trade Union.
It is admitted by the defendants that from and after the 5th day of May, 1951, pickets have
been placed by the abovenamed Union, with placards the property of the Union,-
(a) at or near the entrance to the plaintiff's abovementioned residence; and
(b) at or near the entrance to the plaintiff's abovementioned place of business.
It was frankly conceded by Counsel for the defendants that while it is true that a Trade
Union cannot be sued in tort (see section 6 of the Trade Unions Act, 1939-No 16 of 1939), there is
nothing to prevent an action in tort being brought against the defendants in their individual capacities
for acts done by them or at their instigation, even though acting as agents of the Union. In this con-
nection the following words of Lord Moulton in the case of Vacher CS Sons, Limited vs. The London
Society of Compositors-L.R. (1913) A.C. at p. 133 are of interest:-
Trade Unions. just like all other associations must act through agents, and it is funda-
Smental principle of English law that no tortfeasor can excuse himself from the con-
"sequences of his acts by setting up that he was acting only as the agent of another.
All that the section takes away is the power of proceeding against the association or
making its corporate funds liable."
At the outset a somewhat peculiar position arose in connection with the defendant LIONEL
HURST. Whilst under cross-examination, the plaintiff was asked to point out the particular HuRsT
that he alleged was present at his meeting with the accredited officers of the Union at the Union office.
He thereupon pointed out one DENFIELD HURST as the person. At the close of the hearing of this
motion it was submitted by Counsel for the defendants that in the light of this mistake of the
plaintiff the wrong HURST had been joined as a defendant in this action and the application should be
dismissed as against LIONEL HURST. Counsel for the plaintiff however submitted contra that in view
of the admission of LIONEL HURST when himself in the witness box to the effect that as General
Secretary of the Union he gave instructions for the picketing of the plaintiff's residence and place of
business, he was properly made a defendant in this action. With the latter submission this Court
agrees and so holds.
In view of the contradictory versions of the facts set out by the plaintiff and the defendants in
their affidavits, this Court was compelled to hear evidence both on behalf of the plaintiff and the
The story of the plaintiff, which is corroborated by his wife AGNES FARARA, is that up to the
1st of May last he had in his employ a domestic servant by the name of Lucy ISHMAEL. On that day,
without telling either the plaintiff or his wife a word, Lucy ISHMAEL failed to turn out to work. Next
day she came back to her work and told her employer that she had not turned out the day before as it
was Labour Day. She was then dismissed by the plaintiff's wife. The question of her dismissal was
then taken up by the Trade Union and the plaintiff was told that unless he took back the girl Lucr
1:IMAEL into his employ, a thing which had been done by other employers in like circumstances,
a strike would be called and pickets placed outside both his residence and his place of business. Next
[21 June, 1951.
THE LEEWARD ISLANDS GAZETTE.
day these pickets were duly so placed. The plaintiff stated emphatically that although he refused to
re-employ Lucy ISHMAEL he offered with a view to a compromise to pay her two or three weeks wages
by way of a solatium for her dismissal.
On the other hand the story of the defendants is that there was no demand by the Trade Union
that the girl Lucy ISHMAEL should be re-instated in her employment by the plaintiff. It was merely
suggested by them that she be either re-employed or paid by the plaintiff for the two days for which she
had in fact worked and paid a week's wages in lieu of notice, both of which were refused by the plaintiff.
It was because of this refusal that pickets were placed outside his residence and the remaining servant
employed by the plaintiff persuaded to leave his service. It was also maintained that the picketing of
the pltintiffis business premises was not done because of the dismissal of Lucy ISHMAEL, but was carried
out because a young man, employed by lhe plaintiff as a porter and bottle washer, WALTER BYAM by
name, had been compelled to perform certain domestic work, e.g., the purchase of meat, fish and other
provisions, by the plaintiff without extra remuneration, after the services of Lucy ISHMAEL had been
LUCY ISHMAEL was called as a witness and she swore that it was untrue that the plaintiff and
his wife were not informed by her of her intention not to turn out to work on Labour Day. She
deposed that on the Sunday preceding Labour Day whilst the plaintiff and his wife and children were
at breakfast and she was serving them she said Tuesday was Labour Day and she intended to take that
day off, to which the plaintiff replied that Labour Day was kept up not only in Antigua but all over the
world. Mrs. FARARA is reported to have said nothing. Lucy ISHMAEL went on to say that the next
morning she repeated the same thing to the FARARA children in the presence of Mrs. FARARA, who1
again said nothing.
LUCY ISHMAEL says further that when she took the bread money from the table when leaving
on the Monday night she again said she was not coming to work next day, to which no one made any
reply, though the plaintiff and his wife and children were seated around the dinner table.
In view of this sharp conflict of testimony this Court is compelled to consider the balance of
probabilities in arriving at a conclusion as to which story is more likely to be the true one.
In the first place the story of the girl LucY ISHMAEL, though supported to some extent by the
other servant then employed by the plaintiff, HENITETTA BIRMINGHAM, does not ring true. It appears
fantastic that although Mrs. FARARA was told on three occasions by Lucy ISHMAEL that she was going
to take the day off on Labour Day, she made no answer to LucY ISIHMAEL'S either acquiescing in
her doing so or protesting against it. Then again, though apparently agreeing by their silence to LUCY
ISHMAEL's taking the day off on Labour Day, the plaintiff and his wife should peremptorily dismiss her
the next day, although she had admittedly served them faithfully and well for a period of some three
years, appears improbable to me.
To turn now to the story of the defendants: On a consideration of the facts and surrounding
circumstances, it appears incredible that the plaintiff should be so obdurate as to risk the picketing of
both his residence and place of business, with resultant pecuniary loss as sworn to by him and incon-
venience and discomfort, for refusing to pay the girl Lucy ISHMAEL, who had admittedly been a good
servant to him, an amount which could not be more than some two or three dollars.
Then one has the peculiar conduct of the boy WALTER BYAM. According to the defendants
the strike at the plaintiff's business premises was called and pickets were placed outside the same, because
of BYAM'S being made to do domestic work, to which he had objected, without extra remuneration.
Yet half an hour after the strike is called and the pickets so placed, BYAM returns to his work and,
according to him, continues to perform the very domestic services to which he had objected and on
account of which a strike had been called and picketing started and maintained. In fact he swears that
he worked for the plaintiff until Tuesday, the 5th June, and bought meat for him up to the previous
Again it is common ground that no sooner had one of the Union officers accosted the plaintiff
about the dismissal of LUCY ISHMAEL, he at once went to the Union office. Why should he go there at
all, if he did not intend to make some sort of concession with a view to a settlement of the difference
between the Union and himself?
In considering the facts, mention must be made of the evidence of SYLVIA LOCKHART, a witness
called by the defendants From her hesitancy in answering questions, her demeanour in the witness box
and the general nature of her evidence I am satisfied that her story was a fabrication.
A further aspect to he considered is the background of the quarrel. It seems clear from the
evidence oE the President of the Union himself, that it is the intention of that body to impress upon
employers that they must recognize Labour Day and give their employees a day off to celebrate it. In
his evidence Mr. Biam says if employees are not granted a holiday they should stand firm and leave.
21 June, 19.5 1.)
THE LEEWARD ISLANDS GAZETTE.
After careful consideration of all the facts, I accept the version put up by the plaintiff and
hold that both the residence and the business premises of the plaintiff were picketed by the defendants
because of the dismissal of Lucy ISHMAEL and the refusal of the plaintiff to re-instate her in his employ.
It may very well be that it was suggested to WALTER BYAM that he strike and cease to work
for the plaintiff, but it is obvious that he never did so.
It was submitted by Counsel for the defendants that an injunction will not be granted by the
Court to restrain an act that is merely criminal or illegal unless that act affects the rights of property
and, as I understood it, that that must be construed as meaning the actual physical interference with
property. In support of this contention the Court was referred to Hals. Laws of England (Hails. Ed:)
Vol. 18, p. 11 para. 11 and the cases therein cited namely:-
The A.(G. vs. Shefiield Gas Consumers Co. (1853) 3 De G.M. & G. 304, 320.
Austria (Emperor) v. Day and Kossuth (1861) 3 De G.F. & J. 217.
Prudential Assurance Co. rs. Knott (1875) 10 Ch. App. 142 and others.
Counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand referred the Court to:-
Marco Productions Ltd. vs. Pajola and ors-(1945) 1 K.B. 111.
Kin/ rs. Brown Durant y Co. (1913) 2 Ch. Div. 417 and other cases,
wherein it was ruled that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove any pecuniary damage in order to
obtain an injunction.
After close examination of the authorities I take the view that it is not necessary for the
granting of an injunction for the plaintiff to establish more than interference with the comfortable use or
occupation of the premises interfered with, and I hold on the evidence before me, both oral and by
affidavit, that that has been adequately established by the plaintiff.
Another submission to this Court by Counsel for the defendants was that this was an action
for nuisance by watching and besetting, that there was no evidence whatever of violence or intimidation
by the defendants or their agents and that therefore the defendants were covered by section 7 of the
Trade Unions Act, 1939, as replaced by the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act, 1947. That section
reads as follows:-
7. It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their own behalf or on behalf
of a trade union or of an individual employer or firm in contemplation or furtherance of a
"trade dispute, to attend at or near a house or place where a person resides or works or carries
"on business or happens to be, if they so attend merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining
"or communicating information, or of peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from
The important words in that section appear to me to be "in contemplation or furtherance of a
In view of my finding of fact above, no trade dispute arises between the plaintiff and the
Union as regards the business premises and therefore the defendants are not covered by the provisions
of the abovementioned section.
Is there a trade dispute between the plaintiff and the Union as regards the residence? The
defendants now say that they have no quarrel with the plaintiff for the dismissal of Lucy ISHMAEL,
but feel she should be paid for the two days for which she had worked and given in addition a week's
pay in lieu of notice, thus saying that the plaintiff is liable to LucY ISHMAEL for a civil debt. The case
of Gib/an vs. National Amalgamated Labourers' Union of Great Britain and Ireland L.R. (1903)
2 K.B.D. p 600 may be cited here with advantage. In that case, an ex-official of a Trade Union, owed
the Union money which he had misappropriated. In order to compel him to repay the debt the Trade
Union procured his dismissal from several employment by threatening the employers with a strike if
they c ntinued to employ him. Held two or more persons, such as the officers of a trade union, are not
justified in combining to prevent a workman from obtaining employment in his trade or calling merely
with the object of enforcing payment of a debt due from him to the union. In his judgment at page
624 Stirling L.J. says:-
I do not in the least extenuate the wrongs suffered by the trade union at the hands of
the plaintiff: I think he behaved badly and the trade union shewed him great
"forbearance: still, even a criminal ought not to be persecuted but to be punished accord-
"ing to law. If the plaintiff was guilty of a criminal offence he might and ought to have
"been prosecuted, in which case the appropriate punishment would have been meted out
to him by a legal tribunal. If he failed to pay a just debt, the law provides ample
"means for enforcing payment of it. In certain cases, though not universally, the non-
payment of a debt is punishable by imprisonment. The plaintiff might possibly have
[21 June, 1951.
THE LEEWARD ISLANDS GAZETTE.
"been punished in this way: an attempt to punish him was made and was defeated on
"technical grounds only; but, so far as I can see, tie attempt might have been repeated
"with a fair prospect of success. This was not done, but WiLi.nl is and TOOMEY
adopted the course which has resulted in the present action. If the existence of the
'"default or delb were admitted as a valid excuse for depriving a defaulter or debtor of
"his employment, a punishment might be inflicted on him far greater than that which is
"allowed by law."
It appears to this Court the position in this case is exactly similar. If a civil debt is due LUCY
ISHMAEL by the p:intiff she has her action at law. I hold that the defendants are not acting in contem-
plation or furtherance of a trade dispute," in picketing the residence of the plaintiff and are not covered
by the abovementioned section 7.
Section 6 C of the same Act; as inserted by the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act 1942, makes
it an offence for any person, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do any
act which such other per on has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, wrongfully and without legal
authority, to watch or be-t the house or other place where such other person resides, or works, or carries
on business, or happens o bJe, or the approach to such house or place.
There can be no question in my opinion, that the defendants have caused both the residence
and the business premises >f the plaintiff to be watched or beset in order to compel him to abstain from
doing what they admit he i.ad a legal right to do.
In the premises, I grant the plaintiff an injunction restraining the defendants, their servants
or agents, until the trial of this action or further order, from watching and besetting the residence of the
plaintiff situate in the Factory Road in the Parish of Saint John and also the business place of the
plaintiff situate at the corner of Corn Alley and Long Street in the City of Saint John.
Costs of this motion shall be costs in the cause.
ALEX. R. COOLS-LARTIGUE,
18th June, 1951.
ORDER OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY.
Order made by the Competent Authority for the Presidenoy of Antigua under Regulation 50
of the Defence Regulations, 1939, as having effect by virtue of the Supplies and Servioes
(Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) (Colonies
etc.) Order in Council. 19460 (Imp.) the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers)
Order, 1946, and the Supplies and Services Continuance Order, 1950 (Imp.).
No. 16 of 1951.
DEFENCE REGULATIONS, 1939.
1. Short Title. This Order may be cited as the Control of Prices (Amendment No. 16)
Order, 1951, and shall be read together with the Control of Prices Order, 1944 (No. 911944), as
amended, hereinafter referred to as the Principal Order.
2. Amendment. List A of Part I of the Schedule to the Principal Order is hereby
amended by the deletion of sub-item 22 (c) and the substitution therefore of the sub-item bearing
a similar number as set out in the Schedule hereto.
List "A "-Foodetufts, etc.
Item. Article. Wholesale Price. Retail Price.
22. Milk, evaporated-
(c) Gloria Brand ... 3 5. 10. per case of 96-6 oz. tins 9}d. per 6 oz. tin
3 8. 0. per case of 48-14 oz. tins 1j7j per 141 oz. tin
Dated the 19th day of June, 1951.
R. ST. J. O. WAYNE,
21 June, 1951.]
134 THE LEEWARD ISLANDS GAZi,'TTE. [21 June, 1951.
In the Supreme Court of the Windward Islands and Leeward Islands.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that His Honour the Chief Justice has appointed Friday
the 22nd day of June, 1951, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon for a sitting of the Court at which the follow-
ing appeals will be heard:-
Dennis Dickenson Maurice Goodwin
Samuel Halstead Arthur J. I owrv,
Shadrach Brown J
Renford Payne t
Dated this 16th day of June, 1951.
(Asst. Sout. o! Police)
Arthur J. i,,vry,
(Assi. Supt. of Police)
Arthur J. Bowry,
(J.sst. .'upt. of Police)
Vincent A. Buntin,
(Asst. Supt. of Police)
Arthur J. Bowry,
(Asst. S>upt. of Police)
(Asst. S'upt. of Police)
(Asst. Supt. of Police)
(Asst. Sup t. of Police)
Arthur J. Bowry,
(Asst. Supt. of Police)
N. A. BERRIDGE,
Printed at the Government Printing Office, Leeward Islands, by E. M. BLACKMAN
Government Printer.-ByI Authority.
No. 1 of 1951. Public Meetings and ANTIGUA.
K. W. BLACKBURNE,
14th June, 1951.
No. 1 of 1951.
An Ordinance to empower the Governor in Council
to prohibit meetings and processions in certain
circumstances and to make other provision
in the interest of good order and the public
BE IT ORDAINED by the Governor and
Legislative Council of Antigua as follows:--
1. This Ordinance may be cited as the Public Short title.
Meetings and Processions Ordinance, 1951.
2. In this Ordinance- Interpreta-
"public place" includes any road, street,
square, sidewalk, alley, court, path,
wharf, pier, jetty, bridge, shop, court-
house or any other place to which the
public have access or are admitted with-
3. (1) Where at any time it appears to the Power of
Governor in Council to be in the interest of good counil to
order or the public safety so to do, he may by prohibit
proclamation (subject to the provisions of sub- andproceet
section (4) of this section) prohibit in any public lions.
place in the Presidency or any part thereof or in
any public place in any parish, district, city or
town in the Presidency-
(a) all meetings, gatherings and assem-
blies of persons;
ANTIGUA. 2 Public Meetings andt No. 1 of 1951.
(b) all processions and marches;
(c) all persons from organising, holding
or speaking at or attending any meetings,
gatherings and assemblies of persons;
(d) all persons from organising any
processions and marches.
(2) Every proclamation under this section-
(a) shall remain in force for a period of
not more thai fifteen days, without prejudice
to the issue of a further proclamation at or
before the end of such period;
(b) shall be published in the Gazette and
local.newspapers in the Presidency;
(c) may at any time be varied, altered,
amended or revoked by the Governor in
(3) If at any time it is impossible or imprac-
ticable to publish any such proclamation in the
Gazette and local newspapers in the Presidency,
the Governor shall cause the same to be published
by notices thereof affixed to public buildings or
distributed amongst the public or by oral public
(4) A proclamation issued under this section
may contain such exemptions as the Governor
in Council may think fit.
Prohibited 4. Where a proclamation has been issued
acts. under the provisions of this Ordinance and so long
as the proclamation is in force, no person shall,
within the area to which the proclamation applies-
(a) carry any lighted torch;
(b) beat any drum or blow or use any
(c) without lawful excuse, carry any
arms, explosive substance, knives, sticks or
other weapons of offence of any nature what-
soever (whether similar to the foregoing or
No. 1 of 1951.
Public Meetings and
5. Any person who does any act or thing fence
contrary to the provisions of this Ordinance or to and penalties.
the terms of any proclamation issued under this
Ordinance shall be guilty of an offence and shall,
on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not
exceeding one hundred dollars or to a term of
imprisonment not exceeding three months with or
without hard labour; and any person who attempts
to commit any offence, or incites, aids or abets any
other person to commit an offence against this
Ordinance, shall be liable to the like penalty.
R. ST. J. O. WAYNE,
Passed the Legislative Council the 14th day
of June, 1951.
G. A. THIBOU,
Clerk of the Council.
Printed at the Government Printing Offie, Leeward Islands,
by E. M. BLACKMAN, Government Printer.-By Authority.