against a driving conviction -- but not before scolding magistrates for not clearly setting out how they arrive at their decisions.

The Chief Justice said Acting Magistrate the Wor. Trevor Moniz was right last August in fining 57-year-old Dudley Sinclair Fubler, of Smith's Parish, $150 for driving without due care and attention on August 9, 1990.

But lawyer Mr. Robin McMillan appealed Fubler's sentence, including a six-month driving ban and $150 fine, based on the following grounds: The Magistrate failed to make a finding of fact that the appellant's guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt; The Magistrate made a finding of fact that all of the witnesses were witnesses of truth "and accordingly as the appellant was a witness, that the appellant also was a witness of truth; In light of the previous ground, no magistrate reasonably directing himself as to law and fact could have found the appellant guilty; As the magistrate accepted as truthful the appellant's own evidence as to the prudence of his driving, he erred in law and in fact in finding the case against the appellant proved beyond reasonable doubt; and By failing to state what standard of proof he found the appellant to be careless, the magistrate was in breach of section 21 of the 1930 Summary Jurisdiction Act, that is, his judgment did not contain the point or points for determination and the reasons for his decision.

Mr. McMillan said the acting magistrate also erred in law by upholding an "alleged'' prior conviction as reckonable.

The Chief Justice agreed with this, noting: "The magistrate has not stated how he arrived at the finding of fact concerning the appellant's previous conviction, if he had one.

"He should have stated whether the appellant had admitted this or whether he found this to be a fact after a trial of the fact,'' the Chief Justice said.

"Counsel for the appellant referred to section 51 of the Evidence Act, 1905, in support of his proposition that the record does not disclose how the magistrate arrived at the previous conviction. I have to uphold counsel's submission that the magistrate erred when he imposed the six-month period of disqualification. I, therefore, allow the appeal against sentence and quash the period of disqualification.'' Dismissing the first four grounds of appeal, the Chief Justice said: "The magistrate no doubt applied the correct standard of proof, although he has not expressly said so.

"I would agree that he should have stated his findings of fact with greater clarity,'' the Chief Justice said. "But, in the instant case, the facts are so simple and straightforward I do not think that the magistrate had to record anything more than he has done.

"But I would say for his guidance that in the future he should pay more attention to the provisions at section 21 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1930.''