Attorney-at-law George Prime has reacted to an article which appeared in last weekend’s edition of THE NEW TODAY under the headline banner, “Prime in an uncomfortable position.”
The former Magistrate is refuting several things that were contained in the article which relates to a land transaction sale that went sour on the sister isle of Carriacou.
Following is the response from Attorney Prime:-
Let me begin by making some concessions, which to my mind, is always useful in matters of this kind, because it sets the tone of what is to follow. This response is in no way intended to impugn the character of the editor of the Newspaper, or for that matter anyone who in one way or another, may have contributed to its publication, but merely to “TELL IT AS IT IS”.
Uncomfortable – Yes; accurate position – No; truthful – No; responsible;- No. I trust, it is clearly understood that the writer reserves all his legal rights in this matter.
Uncomfortable position:-
It is not disputed that the genesis of matter, has to do with the sale of a parcel of family land situate at Cherry Hill Carriacou, between George Prime et al (as Vendors) and Beryl Edwards (as Purchaser) on the 30th September 2005. I was indeed the Lawful Attorney for 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants.
It is also conceded that after the sale had taken place, an encroachment occurred on the property on the 4th July, 2006 by the late Faithman Friday who was the Statutory Declarant evidencing title of Rosedella Friday sworn to on the 20th day of March, 2000.
On the 15th January, 2000 the late Faithman Friday as Administrator purportedly conveyed the property to Elizabeth Lawrence who was the encroacher.
Such was the extent of the encroacher title. See Memo of Cecilia Edwards dated the 20th October,2006
It is also further conceded that a statement of claim was filed on June 15, 2011 in this matter by Nigel D. Stewart & Associates acting on behalf of the Claimant. A Defence was filed on July 22, 2011 on behalf of the Defendants by the Chambers of Grant & Joseph.
In April 2015 judgment on admission was entered for the Claimant. There and then, it was decided by the family to return the purchase price to Ms. Edwards instead of prolonging the matter in court on the encroachment issue.
Accurate position:-
When I read the article, it was abundantly clear to me that the reporter was not in the court at the time the matter came up for hearing or whoever took on the task of reporting the matter was clearly influenced by other motives other than “telling it as it is”.
First of all, Prime acted in his own persona and on behalf of the 4th, 5th and 6th judgment debtors who at the time resided outside the jurisdiction. It is equally noteworthy that the 3rd, 4th and 5th judgment debtors have all since died (May their Souls rest in eternal peace).
Secondly, the Chambers of Grant & Joseph by way of Notice of Application, filed June, 2023 sought an order from the court’s record as Attorneys-at-Law representing the judgment debtors to be permitted to withdraw from the record.
Equally noteworthy, these Chambers were the Attorneys for the judgment debtors from the inception of this case to the date of the hearing. I did not object to the application.
Thirdly, I must admit, I had heard (in certain circles that I will be sent to prison on that day). In actual fact, if it was intended that I was brought there to defend myself against a committal order to send me to prison, then the applicant got cold feet, as that application was withdrawn. (These are matters for you)
Untruthful:-
It is untrue that I collected the money. I was not the sole owner of the property in question. It is equally untrue that the lands being sold did not belong to the family.
This transaction, concerned a small part of the property formerly belonging to my late grandfather William Prime. To date, the property is still vested in the Prime family. If it is untrue why put it into the article? (A matter for you).
It is equally untrue that Prime was ordered to repay the money and a court order was agreed to by Stewart for his colleague to make monthly payments of $1000.00 from 2017. If it is untrue, why put it in the article? (A matter for you).
It is also untrue that Actie J, ordered that $12,500 to be paid on the spot. If it is untrue why put it in the article? (These too, are matters for you).
Responsible:-
If it was intended that this matter ought to be reported in an accurate, truthful and responsible manner, then the affidavit of Andia Francis filed in support of the application on the part of former Counsel for the Judgment debtors to withdraw on the 20th June, 2023 is commended.
That affidavit sets out (inter alia) my visit to the Chambers of Grant & Joseph on the 13th June 2023 and collected the file in this claim on behalf of the judgment debtors.
It is quite clear that the author of this report or the provider of the information for its publication was tainted with some other motive (maybe to send Prime to jail) other than to have the judgment debtors pay the judgment debt and the consequences of the breach of the former order -TELL IT AS IT IS – A MATTER FOR YOU
Dana S. Clarke for George W. Prime