CONSEQUENT to the litigation that followed as a result of the action related to the plaintiffs,

Adams and others versus Wilson, Jutice Guya Persaud, who heard the action dismissed the matter with judgment to the defendant.
The plaintiffs were the four remaining members of a church founded in 1947 by one Mc Beth, deceased, of whose estate the defendant was the administratrix.
Before his death the deceased told his legal adviser that he had bought a certain property for the purpose of worship.

The plaintiff claimed a declaration that the deceased held the property on behalf of the members of the church.
The defendant objected to the reception of evidence from the legal adviser as to his conversation with the deceased on the ground that it was a privileged communication between solicitor and client.

Held: the privilege applies only to communications that were made confidentially for the purpose of the employment of the solicitor or to knowledge confidentially obtained solely in consequence thereof. The communication in question was not of the kind.

(ii) the evidence, including the communication, was insufficient to support a finding that the deceased intended to hold the property in trust for the church or its members.
Judgment for the defendant.
Mc. Williams for the plaintiffs.
A.T. Peters for the defendant.
Justice Guya Persaud in delivering the judgment said: The plaintiffs are the members of a church called the Church of the Gospel of the Last Trump of which one William McBeth, also called Leviticus McBerth, now deceased, was the founder and elder.
This movement was funded in 1947 at Lot 2 George and Norton Streets, and it then comprised four members of whom the plaintiff Agness Moore was one. The other plaintiffs became members subsequently. Upon the hearing of this action the membership was four. William Mc Beth died on the 3rd October, 1959, and letters of administration were granted to the defendant.

• During his lifetime William McBeth puchased a property – the subject matter of this action – for $3, 500.00 and, according to the plaintiffs, out of monies collected by them from time to time with the express purpose of providing a building for their church meetings. The plaintiffs further claimed that the purchase of the property was as a result of a decision taken at a meeting held on the 29th December, 1947, presided over by William McBeth , when it was determined to create two funds – one for the ultimate purchase of a building for church purposes, and the other for the meeting of day to day expenses; and the members there and then undertook to make contributions to both funds out of their own earnings, and from any money realised from the sale of pamphlets and from donations, the members honouring their undertaking.

The plaintiffs now claim a declaration that William McBeth held property on behalf of the members of the church, and certain other corollary remedies. The defence has taken the point that the pleadings have not raised the question of a trust, and therefore the plaintiff cannot now rely on such matters. I do not agree. I hold that para. 6(a) of the endorsement of claim, as repeated in para, 12(a) of the statement of claim, amounts to pleading a creation of a trust.

I have no documentary evidence before me to indicate that the plaintiffs , including the plaintiff Moore , made any further contributions , or that the contributions acknowledged on Exhibit (A) went toward the purchase price of the property , or indeed that the deceased William Mc Beth intened to hold the property as trustee for the members of the church.
This takes me to the evidence of Mr. Phillips. The defendant has submitted that Mr. Phillips’ evidence should not be received, as his conversation with the deceased, and to which he has testified, is privileged as being communications between solicitor and client. The plaintiffs’ answer is that the privilege – if there was privilege – died with the deceased.
Having regard to the principle on which privilege is based I cannot hold that the communications made by the deceased to Mr. Phillips are privileged, even though I agree that the defendant as the personal representative of the deceased may properly avail himself of the privilege if it were available.

In my view, Mr. Phillips’ evidence does not take the plaintiffs’ case any further. There is nothing on which I can make a positive finding that the deceased intended to hold the property in trust for the church which was and still is unincorporated, or for the members of the church.
This being my finding there is no necessity for me to consider whether those plaintiffs who became members of the church after the initial meeting in 1947 can now maintain an action in trust, and I express no opinion on this question.
The action is dismissed. The plaintiffs will pay the defendant her costs to be taxed.
Judgment for the defendant.