MACDONELL CJ.—Macpherson v. Appuhamy.
Present: Macdonell OjJ.
MACPHERSON v. APPUHAMY.
274—M. C. Colombo, 24,636.
Motor lorry—Oifence of overloading—Liability of owner—-Ordinance No, 20 of
1927, s, SO (3) <b).
Where the offence of overloading a motor lorry had been committedby the driver, and the owner of the lorry, who was absent at the time, wasunable to show that he had taken all reasonable precautions to preventthe commission of the offence,—
Held, that the owner was also guilty of an offence under section 80 (3)(b) of the Motor Car Ordinance.
HE accused was charged as the owner of a motor lorry which was
found by the Police to have defective brakes and to becarrying an’overload of goods. He pleaded guilty to the charge withrespect to defective brakes but contended that he was. not responsiblefor the driver having carried an overload in his absence. The MunicipalMagistrate convicted him.
No appearance for appellant.
Derardyagala, C.C., for Crown, respondent.
May 29, 1933. Macdonell C.J.—
Really it is sufficient for me to say that I am of the same opinion asthe learned Magistrate for the same reasons. It seems that the driverwas a temporary one, not even selected by the accused himself. He, theaccused, admits further that he knows nothing about the man’s recordand likewise that his drivers are allowed to secure hires, i.e., loads forhis lorries, without any reference to him, the owner of those lorries. Headds “ except for my warning there is nothing to prevent them takingin any load they like
I do not think that on this evidence it can be said that the accusedhas taken ?U reasonable precaution to prevent an offence against theMotor Car Ordinance. The appeal is dismissed.