Morrison, Errol York St. Auburn v Mary Salome Morrison

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN THE CIVIL DIVISION

SUIT NO. 2004 HCV 00561

BETWEEN ERROL YORK ST. AUBYN MORRISON CLAIMANT

AND MARY SALOME MORRISON DEFENDANT

Donald Sharschmidt Q.C and Hugh Levy instructed by Hugh Levy & Co for Claimant.

Carol Davis for Defendant

HEARD: Januarv 31ct, Februaw 1st and April 21ct 2006

JONES, J.

[I] Quod erat demonstrandum. The rhetorical flourish of this Latin epigram meaning literally,

"which was to be demonstrated", has for centuries signified that the requirements for mathematical

proof were at an end. To prove something has always meant persuading one's peers, or in legal

cases a judge or jury, that it has indeed been shown - no more, and no less. In a court of law, the

burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, and in a civil case, the required standard of

persuasion is on a balance of probabilities. That is the evidentiary burden that faces Mary Salome

Morrison on her counterclaim in this case, to prove on balance, that it has indeed been shown that

Professor Errol York St. Aubyra Morrison and herself agreed that she would have a beneficial interest

in certain properties acquired in his name solely or, alternatively, that it can be inferred that she

acquired a beneficial interest under a constructive trust.