Cheap Nike NFL Jerseys China xjssagug

nice6boyt7

Debra Davis, a witness in the case involving two business entities engaged in legal dispute over primeSattaur Gafoor Chairman of GRILcommercial land in the city, faced a series of questions yesterday regarding her knowledge and involvement in matters of the disputed property.At the centre of the legal battle between National Hardware and Guyana Realty Investment Limited (GRIL) /Gafoor & Sons Group of Companies,Rocky Bleier Steelers Jersey, is the land located at Lot 117 “B” Regent and Alexander Streets,Jared Cook Packers Jersey, Georgetown.The two commercial entities are both claiming prescriptive rights to the land.National Hardware ‘s  owner,  Eddie  Boyer,Ernie Stautner Steelers Jersey,  also known as Claude Deygoo,Tevin Coleman Falcons Jersey, claims that he and his wife, Donna Deygoo,Rod Woodson Steelers Jersey, have legal entitlement to the said property on the basis of a transported title,Steve Grogan Patriots Jersey, they acquired in September  2008.But Sattaur Gafoor, the Chairman of GRIL, (Gafoor & Sons) is also claiming ownership.  He is contending that GRIL purchased the property from a third party (Stanley Collymore) in 1993, to use the premises to operate a paint shop.  Yesterday the trial continued before Justice Roxanne George at the High Court in Georgetown.Davis who was previously called to the stand in support of Boyer’s claims was cross examined by Attorney –at- law, Neil Boston.  Boston is representing GRIL in association with Attorneys McKay S.C, Edward Luckhoo S.C.Davis had previously told the court that she had been an occupant of the building located at Lot 117 “B” Regent and Alexander Streets,Javon Hargrave Steelers Jersey, Georgetown.Under cross examination, she faced several questions regarding her knowledge of the said property.    In response to questions posed by attorney, the witness told the court that she had resided on the property for several years. She saidNational Hardware Proprietor,Pittsburgh Steelers Jersey, Eddie Boyerthat her time spent there as a tenant dates back to the early 1980sShe claimed that she was a tenant of the original owner of the property Alan Collymore.   Davis said that Collymore subsequently died and the land was left to his son, Stanley Collymore.Responding to suggestions made by Counsel, Davis disclosed that prior to his death Mr. Collymore had taken her to see attorney Llewellyn John over matters pertaining to the land.  She said later it was Stanley Collymore who requested that she meet with Attorney –at- Law Devindra Kissoon on matters pertaining to the said property.She recalled that she met Mr Kissoon in 2013.  She said that she later met his client, Eddie Boyer.Based on further suggestions by the attorney, the witness told the court that she went to see Mr Kissoon about three or four times after their first meeting.      Davis revealed that the attorney had prepared two affidavits which she later signed.In answer to specific questions, Davis disclosed that she did not have much of an income at the time since she hadn’t a steady job. The woman claimed that after her meeting with the lawyer she would meet with Mr Boyer and he offered to reimburse the money she spent on transportation.Pressed on the subject of money, the witness maintained that she collected nothing more than $160 from the businessman. The sum represented the money which she spent for passage to visit the Lawyer’s Charlotte Street, Georgetown Office.Asked about the information outlined in the documents (Affidavits) which she signed at the lawyer’s Office, Davis told the court that she read and understood it before she signed.The woman was then asked to explain the meaning of certain words and phrases contained in the affidavit.“Notorious,Ty Montgomery Packers Jersey, do you know the meaning of that word? “ Boston asked. Davis was silent for a moment.  “No,” she said to Boston, “but you can tell what it means.”The Attorney then pointed out to the court that the witness signed the document without knowing the meaning of what she was placing her signature.   Davis later claimed that the lawyer had explained and read the affidavit to her before she signed it.Boston then noted that there were a number of inconsistencies in the two affidavits. He suggested that the witness had never been an occupant of building at Lot 117 “B” Regent and Alexander Streets, Georgetown.However, the woman refuted this. She told the court that there were at least two rent receipts to prove that she was a tenant of the building.The witness also rebutted suggestions by the attorney that she was paid to concoct her story and to testify in the Court.