( 142 )
MACK v. WICKREMARATNE.
C. It., Colombo, IQ,762.
Work and labour contemplated by section !> of Ordinance No. ‘22 of1871 is manual labour. A claim for fees for teaching falls under section11 of the Ordinance, and is not prescribed for three years.
T) LAINTIFF sued defendant for the recovery of Rs. 15. beiug
i- fees for instructing the defendant’s nephew during themonths of February and March, 1899. The action was brought on31st May, 1900.
”1110 Commissioner dismissed the suit on the ground that it was
prescribed under section 9 of Ordinance No. 22 of 1871.
H. Jayawardana, for appellant.—Defendant pleaded prescrip-tion under section 9 of No., 22 of 187.1, and the Commissionerupheld the defendant’s plea, but that section does not apply.Either section 8 . or section 11 applies, because it is either a claimon an unwritten promise or a claim not expressly provided for.Section 9 only applies to manual or menial labour, and not toprofessional work (6 S. C. C. 186). [L.awrie, A.C.J.—There was a'case in which a superintendent’s salary was held not to come undersection 9.] There are other cases (1 Lorenz 22 and lid: 2 Lorenz8.7; IS. C. C. 47).
Bawa, for respondent.—Section 9 applies, as the section saysnothing about manual work only (2 Thornton * Institutes, />. 194).The cases from Lorenz applied to artisan’s wages. This is a claimfor work done. In the case cited from 8 8. C. C. the application ofsection 9 was not properly discussed. As regards unwrittenpromises, 4 N. L. R. 70 applies.
Jayawardana, in reply, cited Ramanalhan, 1877, p. 79.
21st June, 1901. Lawrce, A.C.J.—
Doubtless teaching is work, and when the pupils are stupid orunwilling it becomes a labour; but I follow older decisions whenI hold that the work and labour contemplated by the PrescriptionOrdinance is manual labour, at least that it does not include themore important and honourable work of educated men, so that a•claim for fees for teaching falls under the 11th section, and is notprescribed for three years.
MACK v. WICKREMARATNE