( 188 )
PUNCHI SINNO v. PERERA.
P, C., Kandy, 7,707.
Ordinance No. -i of 1896, a. 19—Toll—Exaction of toll for passing toll bar.
A vehicle must pass over a bridge in order to render the owner ofit liable to pay toll under the Ordinance No. 3 of 1896, and the merefaot of its passing a toll bar does not entitle the toll-keeper to exaottoll.
rpms was an appeal from a conviction of the toll-keeper of-L Katugastota, under the 19th section of the Ordinance No. 3of 1896, for taking toll where no toll was payable. .
The appellant admitted that the complainant’s cart did not■pass over tho bridge, but he justified his exaction of toll on theground that the cart passed the toll bar.
Oh appeal against an acquittal.
Dornhorat, for appellant.
I Van Langenberg, for respondent.
1st March, 1898. Bonser, C.J.—
■' In this case a toll-keeper at Katugastota appeals against aconviction under section 19 of Ordinance No. 3 of 1896 for takinga toll where no toll was payable under the Ordinance. It seemshe took toll from a carter in respect of Katugastota bridge,although it is admitted that the vehicle did not pass over the 'bridge, but went along the high road from Kurunegala to Matale,from which the bridge carrying the road to Kandy diverges. Itappears that the toll station is not on the bridge itself, but isplaced on the side of the road from Kurunegala to Matale justopposite to the bridge. The appellant justifies the exaction oftoll on the ground that the cart passed the toll bar. The answerto that is that the Ordinance does not make the vehicle liable totoll for passing the toll bar, but for using the bridge.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
PUNCHI SINNO v. PERERA