COREEN GREGG v BRUNO LAMONTAGNE

SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) A.D. 1996 Suit No. 95 of 1993 BETWEEN: COREEN GREGG PIa ff and BRUNO LAMONTAGNE De Mr. D. Theodore for Plaintiff Mr. O. Edgar for Defendant 1995: 1996: November 13 and December 8; January 12 and 16. JUDGMENT MATTHEW J. The Plaintiff and the Defendant lived together as wife and from 1982 to 1990 and during that time PIa iff bore two ldren for the Defendant, Lance aged 11 years years. They parted company in November 1990 and over -s months later on February 26, 1993 the aintiff titut s At the trial the Plaintiff called two witnesses, Mr. Norman Francis, a barrister, who is secretary to the National Commercial Bank, and her son Lance. The Defendant gave evidence but led not witnesses. Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant are as follows:

1.a loan from the Plaintiff to the Defendant of $2,000 in August 1985 to repair his car.

2.a debt of $1,000 owing by Defendant to the Plaintiff which occurred in February when instead of depositing $1,000 in Defendant's bank account due to him if $2

3.a De one

4.a

5.a was I set s transact t ss f the I reasons iff. s transact ace The PI fS account. s is to The De es I reject s the iff. Loan of $10,000 s transaction is stated to have taken ace 1990. aintiff states that she gave the Defendant a $8, 0 ch he was supposed to have placed s account at the Nat Commercial Bank. It was in support of s t aintiff subpoenaed Norman Francis. Francis must have sappointed her. He said in evidence with reference to a document he produced Court the following: liThe document is a statement of accounts Mr. Bruno Lamontagne for the period 3/5/1990 to 31/12 1990. document states the Account Number 1037410000. That is a savings account. For that period was no it for $8/000.00". said in addition to the she the Defendant $2, in hand from "SOOSOO" money. Def s loan. I do not believe the aintiff and s cla is se rejected. Plaintiff stated that she gave De wit sl from her account and a banker's cheque in did not produce any withdrawal sl De in evidence stated that the Plaintiff did not 1 him $18, 00 or any other sum to purchase a motorcar and in fact purchased the car s own funds and a loan from N.C.B. He denied a iff thdrawal slips in his favour. Defendant explained a sum of $13/000 which the Plaintiff pa He said the Plaintiff was the one who offered to pay $19,000 for s old mazda car which the Plaintiff's brother damaged while he was in England and she agreed that when the car was repaired and sold she would get her money back. I believe the Defendant / s account and I rej ect the Plaintiff's c aim. It needs to be observed here that when the Court quest Plaintiff in respect of the debt of $21,000 sa "As far as the debt of $21,000 is concerned I $10,000". Now in examination in chief Plaintiff stated t 1, 199 received the damaged car after it was repai on she sold it to a guy, Andrew Gabriel of Cable reless for $12,000, $10,000 of which she kept. Yet her claim from the Defendant is terable and rema at $21,000. s is an example the extent t Plaintiff's claim. s Plaintiff will clutch at any straw to extract money from t Defendant. Her claim is based on the fact Ie was from her home t Defendant by the use of to e which he obtained from Lance ent e to the extent of $3,325.00. In support of her claim she brings the 11 year old to testi against his father because on one occasion when the was driving the child to school he took the key from him gave it to the child in the afternoon when he was dropping from school. I do not believe the Defendant entered the Plaintiff's and carried away goods belonging to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff under cross-examination admitted that while the Defendant lived at the Morne she took a bus and brought up certain articles to him. This was at a time when she wanted the Defendant to have the children. In her evidence in chief sa brought the 4 chairs to his house but that is inc r statement of claim as part of the things took from r In his evidence the Defendant stated "I know the aintiff took things to my home in my absence. It included 4 living room rs, beds for the children, a foam mattress." I believe Def Plaintiff is not a witness of t I find also that the Defendant was the one who paid most of t things mentioned in the statement of cIa I reject contention of the Plaintiff that they were gifts to nero In coming to my conclusions this case I have had regard to t demeanour of the Parties to the t. The PIa iff was stant and unsure of herself and I have already ed out certain inconsistencies in her evidence. Defendant on the was calm, cool and collective and despite a rather cross examination he was totally unruffled. I regard him as a tness of truth notwithstanding the fact that he did not scr If as a "born again believer" as the aintiff was ck to out. Plaintiff's claim is a trumped up charge founded upon it and lies designed to extract money from the Defendant as a result of the break up of their affair. s suit is dismissed with costs to the Defendant to be , if not agreed.

A.N.J. Matthew

Puisne Judge

Suit No. 95 of 1993 MATTHEW J. Delivered: 16/01/96