User-generated version by Tyler Forbes

© Copyright 2023, vLex Justis. All Rights Reserved.

Copy for use in the context of the business of the vLex customer only. Otherwise, distribution or reproduction is not permitted

Thompson v Roach

Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago

Judge: Cherrie J.
Judgment
30 October 1967
Date:
Neutral {:value=>"TT 1967 HC 24", :attribution=>"Judgment", :fulltext_available=>true,
Citation: :vid=>793746861, :url=>"/vid/793746861"}
{:value=>"TT 1967 HC 24", :attribution=>"Judgment", :fulltext_available=>true,
Reported In:
:vid=>793746861, :url=>"/vid/793746861"}
Docket
No. 1381 of 1966
Number:
Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
Date: 30 October 1967

Id. vLex Justis VLEX-793746861

Link: https://justis.vlex.com/vid/thompson-v-roach-793746861

Text

High Court

Cherrie, J.

No. 1381 of 1966

Thompson
and
Roach

Inheritance and succession - Will — Whether widow entitled to part of late husband's estate.

Cherrie J.
20 Oct 2023 23:51:53 1/3
User-generated version by Tyler Forbes

In this action the plaintiff, Clementine Thompson, the widow of the late Joseph Thompson, seeks
to have some provision made for her out of the Estate of the deceased on the ground that he left a
will in which he made absolutely no provision for her; and the main plank of her case is that at all
material times during his life, Joseph Thompson maintained her. In point of fact, her actual
evidence is that he maintained her up to the month prior to his death in 1964.

At the time of death, Clementina Thompson lived apart from her husband. She maintains that she
left the matrimonial home in 1953 because she was stricken with an illness which prevented her
from looking after herself or after her husband; that she went to live with a relative at D'Abadie
and some time afterwards, some years after, she learnt that her husband was living in open
concubinage with one Jessie Roach, the first named defendant in this matter. She says that from
the time she left until the month preceding his death, her husband paid her regularly $15.00 per
week with the exception of the last month when he only gave her $10.00.

It is well that I say from the outset that I do not consider this lady to be a witness of truth. On the
contrary, it is abundantly clear from her evidence and from the affidavits used in this case that she
has absolutely no respect for an oath and it is extremely difficult to accept anything that she says
in her evidence unless it is supported by other testimony. In one affidavit she said she received
$15.00 per month; in another affidavit she said she received $15.00 per week and that she
received it regularly. It transpired however, that she had to admit that during the period of some
two to three years when her husband was not working she got nothing. She further had to admit
that from 1956 to 1963, which would mean up to the year immediately preceding her husband's
death, she was in receipt of public assistance. Still, she would ask me to believe that she got this
public assistance notwithstanding the fact that her dutiful husband was paying her $15.00 per
week.

One thing that has struck me as being passing strange is that this woman leaves her husband's
home in 1953 and never sets foot back in that house. This seems to indicate, in my view, that
when she left she did so lock, stock and barrel. And apart from that, the dutiful, loving husband
visits her once in the same year of her departure, 1953, and never visits her again.

I am satisfied that whatever the particular reason she had for leaving the matrimonial home, when
she left it was not merely because of her health but because of a split in the matrimonial
relationship. No evidence has been led to indicate that her departure in 1953 was through the
fault or the misconduct of her husband. In point of fact, she says that she did not learn of the illicit
relationship between her husband and Jessie Roach until years after. So my finding on that
score, therefore, is that Clementina Thompson left the matrimonial home of her own free will and
never turned back towards her husband. I do not accept her evidence that she received this
assistance from her husband in view of the fact, as I said, of her latest admission that during the
period of two to three years she certainly could not have received anything from him, because he
did not have, and that eventually from 1956 to 1963 she was in receipt of public assistance. As I
said, she turned out to be a most untruthful witness. The witness whom she called in support,
Mrs. Chock Hong, was not only truculent and rude but displayed an attitude inasmuch as to say,
20 Oct 2023 23:51:53 2/3
User-generated version by Tyler Forbes

“I have come here to say A, B, C, do not ask me a single question about D, E, and. F” So that the
discrepancies in her evidence plus the discrepancies between her version and the version of the
plaintiff cannot be attributed either to error or to a loss of memory. I have come to the conclusion
that it is the result of sheer mendacity.

I am not satisfied, as I said, that the husband contributed towards the support of his wife from the
time she left his home. On the contrary, the evidence tends to indicate he gave her no support so
that she had to resort to public assistance and the fact that she never brought any maintenance
proceedings against him would tend to show in my mind that the matrimonial split was not as a
result of any misbehaviour on the part of the husband. In those circumstances, I cannot say that
the testator acted unreasonably in withholding any benefit from her under his will and accordingly
I see no reason why the Court should interfere with the provisions therein.

I will therefore pronounce judgment for the defendants and – ex miseri cordin — I make no order
as to costs.

20 Oct 2023 23:51:53 3/3