The following judgments were delivered:-
GARDINER-SMITH, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Acting Judge of the Supreme Court of the Gambia, dated the 16th of January, 1930.
The plaintiff's claim was against the defendant Richard James Hall as Executor of Richard Calvert Hall, deceased, for return to her of the title deeds of No. 56 Leman Street, Bathurst, and for damages for detaining the same, or, in the alternative, for a declaration by the Court that No. 56 Leman Street is the property of the plaintiff.
As the said title deeds were in possession of the Bathurst Trading Company the trial Judge ordered that Company to be joined as a defendant.
After hearing evidence, the learned Judge dismissed the plaintiff's claim, and ordered each party to pay his or her own costs.
Five grounds of appeal were lodged, but, at the hearing of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant reduced these to two heads, viz:-
(1) That the land was purchased with appellant's money.
(2) That the appellant had been in possession of the property for the statutory period of twelve years, and so could claim under the Statutes of Limitation.
On these grounds he submitted that the appellant was entitled to judgment.
The first ground raises a pure question of fact. The learned Judge found that the appellant did not purchase the property out of her money. He based his finding upon the documentary evidence. Apart from the receipts for rates, which, although referred to in the judgment, were not in evidence, there was strong documentary evidence that the property was bought by R. C. Hall, and not by the appellant. The receipt for the purchase money and the .conveyance are both in R. C. Hall's name. The appellant, who had cohabited with R. C. Hall, alleged that the property was purchased for her by R. C. Hall, out of money deposited by her with him, for safekeeping, and the defendant Hall, who is appellant's son, and was to all intents and purposes her witness, corroborated this, and said that it was by mistake that the receipt for the purchase money and the conveyance were taken in R. C. Hall's name. Appellant, however, could not tell what price was paid for the property, and, although R. C. Hall's will was not in evidence, it was admitted by the appellant that he dealt with the property as his own and devised it to his sons. Moreover, the defendant Hall had previously asserted that it was R. C. Hall's property. There was, therefore, in my opinion, evidence to justif
