( 73 )
GUNAWARDENA v. MARTHINO.
P. C., Kandy, 6,564.
Ordinance No. 12 of 1891, at. 27 and 11—Keeper of tavern.
The “ keeper of a tavern,” under section 27 of the OrdinanceNo. 12 of 1891, is the de facto keeper of it, as distinguished from theman who holds a license.
/COMPLAINANT, a police sergeant, charged the accused, askeeper of the tavern at Getambe, with receiving an umbrellaof the value of Rs. 2 in pledge for 37 cents worth of arrack, contraryto section 27 of the Ordinance No. 12 of 1891.
The Police Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground thathe was a salesman and not the keeper of the tavern.
The Attorney-General appealed against the Police Magistrate’sorder.
Templer, G.C., for appellant.
Browne, for respondent.
2oth November, 1897. Lawbie, A.C.J.—
I think the acquittal is wrong. I have no hesitation in holdingthat the keeper of a tavern is the de facto keeper of it, as distin-guished from the man who holds a license. The accused isconvicted of an offence punishable under Ordinance No. 12 of 1891,sections 27 and 47, inasmuch as be; ~ the keener of the tavern
( 74 )
employed by the licensed person to sell liquoT (including the produceof the cocoanut palm, &o.) at the tavern at Getambe, he did on the19th September, 1897, take and receive from Sinnaya Kangany anumbrella in pledge, barter, or exchange for 37£ cents worth of arrack,and he sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10, or in default of payment tobe imprisoned for fourteen days.
GUNAWARDENA v. MARTHINO