( 64 )
ANTHONY v. JOHANNES et cU.P. G., Chilaw, No. 8,460.
Grown costs—Compensation—Necessary findings in order—Complaintconsisting of several charges.
When a Magistrate condemns a complainant in Crown costs orcompensation on a complaint containing charges for more than oneoSence, he must find in regard to which of the offences the complaintwas frivolous or vexatious.
An order in these terms : “ I order complainant to pay a sum of“ Rs. 5 as Crown costs and Rs. 2‘ 50 each as compensation to the“ accused. In default of payment I sentence the complainant to“ one month’s simple imprisonment ”—is defective; in that itomits to state whether it is in default of the payment of compen-,sation or of Crown costs that imprisonment is awarded.
r[THE complainant charged the accused, seven in number, withtheft, voluntarily causing hurt, criminal trespass, and certainother offences. The Police Magistrate found the case to be“ entirely false and frivolous,” and in acquitting and dischargingthe accused made order for Crown costs and compensation as statedabove. The complainant appealed.
Weinman, for appellant.
18th September, 1895. Withers, J.—
The complaint contains as many as eight different offences underthe Code. H the complaint was frivolous or vexatious in regard toeach of the offences of which the accused was charged or some oneor more of them, the Magistrate should so find, and that part of thejudgment which directs the complainant to pay both compensationfor the accused and costs for the Crown is defective for omitting tostate whether it is in default of the payment of compensation ordefault of payment of Crown costs that the Magistrate awardsimprisonment. I presume imprisonment was awarded for default,if any, of payment of compensation, because under OrdinanceNo. 22 of 1890 fourteen days are the limit of imprisonment for thedefault of payment of Crown costs. This omission is a defect inthe order, which must be amended. When that has been donethe order will hold good. Counsel has not satisfied me that the orderis substantially a wrong one.
Prom that part of the order which awards Crown costs there isreally no right to appeal, the-order having been made in a casecoming within the scope of chapter XIX. of Ordinance No. 22 of1890.
ANTHONY v. JOHNANNES et al