031-NLR-NLR-V-19-BURMESTER-v.-MUTTUSAMY.pdf
( )Preterit: De Sampayo J.BURMESTER v. MTJTTUSAMY.
573 and 574—P. G. Gampola, 9,637.
Unlawful gaming—Coolies playing cards for money in verandah of coolylines—Is it a place to which " public ” have access?
Fourpersons were foundplaying cards for .money in the verandah
of a set of coolylines on anestate, where some500 coolies worked.
Held,that aspersons not employed on theestate had no – access
to theplace, itwas nota place to whichthe public had access
within the meaning of the Gaming Ordinance, 1889.
T
HE facts are set out in the judgment.
F. J. de Saram, for first and fourth accused, appellants.
July 5, 1916. De Sampayo J.—
The first and fourth accused appeal from – a conviction under the- .Ordinance No. 17 of 1889 for unlawful gaming. In the formal con-viction the offence is laid under section 6 of the Ordinance, whichis evidently a mistake for section 4. The appellants and two otherlabourers on Choughleigh estate were found playing a game ofcards for money in the verandah of a set of lines. The Police Magis-trate has rightly stated the question in the case to be whether thisis a place to which the •“ public ” have access within the meaningof section (2) (a) of the Ordinance. He says that, although it istrue that the general public outside the estate cannot be said to haveaccess to the place, still, as the coolies of the estate, who appear tobe some 500 in number, may have access to it, it may be regardedas a place to which the public have access. I do not think thatthis construction of the Ordinance is in accordance either with k itsintention or with its letter. The word “ public r’ is not defined inthe Ordinance, but there is no difficulty as to its ordinary meaning.It signifies the general body of people in a country. For instance,where it was provided by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888,that a certain thing might be done “ in the interests of the public, ”Wills J. observed that, though the "public meant nothing widerthan the British public, it was at any rate as wide as that, and that“ the interests , of the public ” did not mean merely the interests ofany particular localities. The Liverpool Gorn Trading Associationv. The London and North-Western Railway Co.1 The very essenceof the term “ public ” is its generality and indeterminateness. Thecoolies on an estate, like other members of the 'community, are nodoubt a part of the public, but they cannot by themselves form a“ public ”. The coolies, however numerous, are determinate persons,-
1 L. R. (1890) 1 Q. B., at pp. 184 and 185,
1910*.
( 1*4 )
1916.
!De SamfayoJ.
JSurmester v.MtUtusamy
and because they as individuals have access to the lines of the estateon which they .are employed, it is impossible to say that the publichave access to the lines in the sense of the Ordinance. I thereforethink, though the result may be regrettable, that the appellantscannot be said to have played cards in a place which would underthe Ordinance make the gaming unlawful.
On this ground the .conviction is set aside.
Set aside.
♦