VIBRRT WILLIAMS v EARDLEY RUTE

.. .If t, It - I i l. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ~ SAINT VINCENT ANI) TilE URf':NADINES , SUIT NO: 512 of 1994 'i : t {.:';\ I~FTWI:FN: "\' " ( VIBRRT WILLIAMS of Kingstown Park PI.AINTIFF. , . AND EARDLEY RUTE of Lowmans Hill I )EFENDANT t ,r ~ 'I APPEARANCES: Mr. Arthur Williams jor the Plaintiff. Mr. SL. Aubyn Cato tor the Defendant ,. \' 'i I " ' •fl ~ '~ .70th September. ~~97 : , Dehyered 9th Octo~:r. 19(h .. ~ ,,I " BAPTISTE J. , j: ,J@~ ) I • ~ , ' , p On the 30th of September, 99t I gave judgment for the plaintiff in a case: in nuisan~(t which Ill: brought against the defendant. I "ow give my reasons. , The plaintiff is the owner or a hou~e [It Kingstown Park in S1. VinC~r'lt and ~as been living ill that I \ house since 1962. The defendant is the owner of a house at Kingstown Par~ and livcJ thf're fron) , ' ] 964 to 1970. Sometime i:1 19~2 the defendant effected some repair~ to th~ 'house. \ie_~fut 011 ~.~ I • r outside bath. The def~ndant at present lets the house to a tenan!. TheL deft ndallt's house is1 I located above the house ofth,: plaintiff. r I • ' ~, t ,_,' The plaintiff in his evidence stated that about six,years ago, the defendant built a c~,ncretergutrer •• on his land to run his water from washing and from his bath along with water from the galvanize ., of his house and all this water comes down by him. The water came in his yard, sometimes . 'I I . " JIe It~d to concrcte the Yid an4 whdn. lhe waler! under his housc and tlC water dug up lhe yard. was coming in the yard he wasn't ,able lo"walk there ~operly. The ~Iainti stated (hat he spo~e I t I to the defendant about the mtli,ter but nothing was 4one.> He also went to the Public ',leal 1 \. . Department on about three occasions. ~ , , . , I r" ,. .­ In cross-examination the pJaintif'" said that he ~iscovered ~hai water +s run:ling from the \. defendant's land to his land when the Idetendailt put <\ tc~nant to live there. Before thal th,! I , I. defendant did not have a batn olitsipe leading to his land. He further '~id that there {va: no drainage running from the house above his to his ;and~ f t . f ,,r , . , ...... , .2 " ' I I:&t I, In his evidence the defendant stated that there is a hous.:: a~ .Ive the nk .nifh house. Tl1al hou~[ is r~ght next to his h,)Use 4lnd i,t is the nearest boundary to the plai Il.iI~r.t There was a \.:I,',mnHlII " dram belween Ihe txlundary 01 Ihe huuse above ~hc law! he was Tf~lhg and Mr II< I"~"" n he lived ~hcrc, Ilis land, thal's the plainlirt's land, t I,

1., . ;~~: I II r . I ~ t· • •• • . t I Very importantly thy defendant stated Ihat he never had any c~mplaints 'vJh1 molher lived there up to 1991 he ~i"ited her reFtdarly and there wa, no ctplain(: Ilis ~roll~cr lived there lip to July. ;,99 and there W~IS no cql~plainl. I .: .~ ~ I \l ! I lind that from 1964 tn )91; I the plaintiff III vcr complained about <I walcr;ptoblcllI 011 his Ihnd, It is not unreasonable to conclude ,hat no such problem existed. t I I accept the evidence of the plaintiff that he discovered :l-tat water W~!'l runnin/f from the ! I dcfendant's land to his land \~hcn thc defendant put his tenant 10 liw therc. iF,kforc I'\C ~h i.-ndan" I , .. ~ I l I I , It is interesting to note that the defendant himself said that it vas since the tenant began'living ill. ~, the house that the plaintiffhegan to complain, The defendant explained ,however that the rCtls(~111 j,t . did not have a bath outside .eading to the land o~' the plaintiff.: ~ f, • .', I, . ." for the complaint related to a refusal on his p,art t\1 let the house to the plaintiff after ,the pl,inlill requested him to rent the house. [do not believe the reason advaI\ced by, the defendant. TI)f plaintiff was more credible in his evidence. " " I I I conclude that before 1991 then was no tNater problJ~ on the land 'of the: plaintiff', T"e 'watt an outside bath and a concrete gutter to run his dome1ie water and pH 'th~t water can;e on the plaintifi's land and caused th~ nuisance complained about I accoroingly e?;tll' jUdt',f~1 fer Ihe plamti ff and make the followmg del laratlons: • l' I .' prohh;m started abuut 1991 wh'e~l the dcll.'"ldant let llu~ Ill;lIsa to tl:c..; tenant. i The dclcnjulll bili 11 I • i ,. I I \!, (J) The plaintiffis Jwarded $500,00 in damages, ,I f ~ (2) The injun~tion prayed for is refused. . , t 't , The plaintiff is to have hi~ costs. To be taxed if not agreed. ~ 'f '\ , \ . .' ;h .1, t ~ 'I , r '~E!'·~~r~ Da dson K. Bttptiste '\ .,I Hig .Court Judge (Ag,:) i l , ,t

•• “\’ .. : t {.:’;\ .If t, It I i l. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ~ SAINT VINCENT ANI) TilE URf’:NADINES , SUIT NO: 512 of 1994 'i I~FTWI:FN: ( VIBRRT WILLIAMS of Kingstown Park PI.AINTIFF. . , . AND “ EARDLEY RUTE of Lowmans Hill I )EFENDANT t ,r ~ 'I APPEARANCES: Mr. Arthur Williams jor the Plaintiff. Mr. SL. Aubyn Cato tor the Defendant ,. \’ 'i I ” ‘ •fl ~ ‘~ .70th September. ~~97 : , Dehyered 9th Octo~:r. 19(h .. ~ ,,I “ BAPTISTE J. , j: ,J@~ ) I • ~ , ‘ , p On the 30th of September, 99t I gave judgment for the plaintiff in a case: in nuisan~(t which Ill: brought against the defendant. I "ow give my reasons. , The plaintiff is the owner ora hou~e [It Kingstown Park in S1. VinC~r’lt and ~as been living ill that I \ house since 1962. The defendant is

the owner of a house at Kingstown Par~ and livcJ thf’re fron) , ‘ ] 964 to 1970. Sometime i:1 19~2 the defendant effected some repair~ to th~’house. \ie_~fut 011 ~.~ I • r outside bath. the def~ndant at present lets the house to a tenan!. TheL deft ndallt’s house is1 I located above the house. ofth,: plaintiff. r I • ‘ ~, t ,_,’ the plaintiff in his evidence. stated that about six,years ago, the: defendant built a c~,ncretergutrer on his land to run his water from washing and from his bath along with water from the galvanize ., of his house and all this water comes down by him. The water came in his yard, sometimes . I I “ 1 JIe It~d to concrcte The Yid an4 whdn. lhe waler! under his housc and tlC water dug up lhe yard. was coming in The yard he wasn’t ,able lo”walk there ~operly. The ~Iainti stated (hat he spo~e

I t I to the defendant about the mtli,ter but nothing was 4one.> He also went to the Public ‘,leal 1 .. Department on about three occasions. ~ , , . , I r” ,. .’ ~ In cross-examination the pJaintif'” said that he ~iscovered ~hai water +s run:ling from the . I defendant’s land to his land when the Idetendailt put <\ tc~nant to live there. Before thal th,! I , I. ‘ defendant did not have a batn olitsipe leading to his land. He further ‘~id that there {va: no drainage running from the house above his to his ;and~ f t . f ‘t ,,r 4 ‘I , . , …… , .2 ” ‘ I I:&t I, In his evidence the defendant stated that there is a hous.:: a~ .Ive the nk .nifh house. Tl1al hou~[ is r~ght next to his h,)Use 4lnd i,t is the nearest boundary to the plai Il.iI~r.t There was a .:I,’,mnHlII

“ dram belween Ihe txlundary 01 Ihe huuse above ~hc law! he was Tf~lhg and Mr II< I”~”” land, thal’s the plainlirt’s land, t I, 1. , . ;~~: I II r . I ~ t· • •• • . t I Very importantly thy defendant stated Ihat he never had any c~mplaints ‘vJh1n he lived ~hcrc, Ilis molher lived there up to 1991 he ~i”ited her reFtdarly and there wa, no ctplain(: Ilis ~roll~cr lived there lip to July. ;,99 and there W~IS no cql~plainl. I .: .~ ~ I \l ! I lind that from 1964 tn )91; I the plaintiff III vcr complained about I I accept the evidence of the plaintiff that he discovered :l-tat water W~!’l runnin/f from the ! I dcfendant’s land to his land \~hcn thc defendant put his tenant 10 liw therc. iF,kforc I’\C ~h i.-ndan” I , .. j,t . did not have a bath outside .eading to the land o~’

the plaintiff.: ~ f, • .’, I, ~ I l I I , It is interesting to note that the defendant himself said that it vas since the tenant began’living ill. ~, the house that the plaintiffhegan to complain, The defendant explained ,however that the rCtls(~111 . .” for the complaint related to a refusal on his p,art t\1 let the house to the plaintiff after ,the pl,inlill requested him to rent the house. [do not believe the reason advaI\ced by, the defendant. TI)f plaintiff was more credible in his evidence. “ 1 ” I I I conclude that before 1991 then was no tNater problJ~ on the land ‘of the: plaintiff’, T”e ‘watt prohh;m started abuut 1991 wh’e~l the dcll.'”ldant let llu~ Ill;lIsa to tl:c..; tenant. iThe dclcnjulll bili 111 I • i ,. I an outside bath and a concrete gutter to run his dome1ie water and pH ‘th~t water can;e on the plaintifi’s land and caused th~

nuisance complained about I accoroingly e?;tll’ jUdt’,f~1 fer Ihe plamti ff and make the followmg del laratlons: • l’ I .’ I !, (J) The plaintiffis Jwarded $500,00 in damages, ,I f ~ (2) The injun~tion prayed for is refused. . , t ‘t , The plaintiff is to have hi~ costs. To be taxed if not agreed. , ~ ‘f ‘\ \ . .’ ;h .1, t ~ ‘I , r ‘~E!’·~~r~ Da dson K. Bttptiste ‘\ .,I ‘J Hig .Court Judge (Ag,:) i l , ,t ~ “