Supreme Court
Action No. 33 of 1981
8th September, 1983.
Moe, C.J.

Mr. M.C. Young for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Edwin Flowers for the Defendant.

Personal and moveable property - Ownership - Damages for wrongful detention of property, diminished value through want of care and maintenance, and loss of use.

J U D G M E N T

The main issue for determination in this Action was the ownership of a Stone Crusher. The evidence was clear that Mr. Philip Chin, Managing Director of the Plaintiffs paid the purchase price of $5,000 for the crusher. The question which arose was whether, as Mr. Chin says, he paid the purchase price for the Plaintiffs or for and on behalf of the Defendant as the Defendant asserts.

I rejected the Defendant's version of what transpired on account of firstly the inconsistencies in his case particularly the following -

(a)	He pleaded that the Crusher was purchased by one Michael Espat on behalf of the Plaintiffs company whereas his evidence was that Mr. Chin on behalf of the Plaintiffs purchased it.
(b)	He pleaded that he instructed the Plaintiffs accountant to debit his account with the $5,000 whereas his evidence was that it was Mr. Chin who gave the instructions for debiting his account.

Secondly, documentary evidence presented which I acted upon does not support the Defendant's allegation that he was debited with the $5,000 and that he saw such a debit. In this connection I refer to the submission that the ledger sheet of the Defendant's account may be a concoction. After a study of the documents I have found that the ledger sheet accurately reflects the entries in the cash book which clearly is not a concoction but was being complied month by month before there was any dispute between the parties.

On the other hand the evidence was entirely consistent with the Plaintiffs version and I accepted it. I found that the Plaintiffs were and are the owners of the Stone Crusher.

The Defendant took possession of that Stone Crusher. The Plaintiffs demanded its return and the Defendant has refused to return it. The Defendant is liable to the Plaintiffs for wrongful detention. Plaintiffs will have an order for return of crusher or value of $5,000. The Plaintiffs are entitled also to damages for the detention of the crusher. They asked for $1,500 for diminished value through want of care and maintenance. The evidence in support of this was not challenged and the amount appears reasonable. I allow it.

The Plaintiffs have also claimed for loss of use at $250 per week. Evidence was given that in January 1981 when demand was made for the return of the crusher, Plaintiffs, had a firm agreement with someone to jointly operate the crusher and share the profits 50-50. There was evidence as what production would be and the likely earnings therefrom and further as to the expenses which would be involved in bringing in those sums. Again, there was no challenge to this evidence and I accepted it as showing a real possibility that if the Plaintiffs had their Stone Crusher, it would have brought them in sums as claimed. For the period 1st January, 1981 to today's date or 2 years 8 months at $250 per week would give a total of $34,666. This I discounted or reduced by two-fifths or $13,860 for the imponderables, such as, the period it might have taken to get the business going, the periods when there might have been no production, the periods when there might have been no sale of crushed stone and so on. Under this head I award $20,800.

Plaintiffs will have order for return of the Stone Crusher or its value $5,000. Damages in the sum of $22,300 and their costs.

----------OO----------