( 107 )
Present: Mr. Justice Wood Bentoir.
JOHN v. CASSIM.P. C., Colombo (Joint), 6,082.
Port rules—“ Vessel ”—Steam launch—Ordinance No. 6 of 1866, s. 6.
In the prohibitive part of role 4 of the Port roles made under6 of Ordinance No. 6 of 1866 the term “ vessel ” includes asteam launch.
PPEAL from a conviction under rule 4 of the Port rules framedunder section 6 of Ordinance No. 6 of 1865.
The facts and arguments appear in the judgment-
Dornhorst (junior) for the accused-appellant.
21st March, 1906. Wood Benton J.—
I am indebted to Mr. Dornhorst for a clear and concise argu-ment in support of the appeal. But in my opinion the view of thelearned Police Magistrate’ is right. He has found as a fact that theaccused, being then in charge of the' steam launch “ Fanny, blewhis whistle repeatedly at 3 a.m. in the Harbour of Colombo, and thatthe steam launch was not “ under weigh ” at the time. If a steamlaunch is a " vessel ” within the meaning of rule 4, section IV. of therules of the Port of Colombo, the conviction is clearly good. Nowthe rules in question are made under section 6 of Ordinance No. 6 of1865; and section 3 of that’ Ordinance defines the word “ vessel ”as including “ anything made for the conveyance by water of humanbeings or property. ” Why are we to place a more restricted meaningon the term in rule 4 of the Port rules? On two grounds, says Mr.Dornhorst—first,' because other rules (see Nos. 1 and 9 of sectionI. and 6 and 9 of section IV., differentiate vessels from boats, steamlaunches, and other craft; and secondly, because the saving clausein rule 4 itself, “ except vessels when under weigh, either in enteringor leaving the harbour,” shows that that rule contemplates thecase of ocean-going steam vessels alone. How far the saving clausein rule 4, as it stands, protects steam launches under weigh is aquestion which I have not now to consider. But I am clearly ofopinion that as regards the prohibitive part of that rule the term‘‘ vessel ” includes a steam launch. It prohibits between the hoursof 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. the sounding for any purpose whatever ” of■“ any kind of steam whistle ”—words which themselves point to avariety of steam vessels being included in the definition. I do notthink that the specification of different classes of vessels in otherrules, when it is found necessary to make such vessels the subject ofparticular regulations, tells against this construction. I affirm theconviction and sentence.
JOHN v. CASSIM