( 128 )
Present: Fisher C.J. and Garvin J.
DE SILVA t>. KONAMALAI.
162—D.C. (lnty.) Trincomalee, 1173.
Execution—Implement of trade—Fishing boat—Civil Procedure Code,
A fishing boat is not an implement of trade with the meaningof section 218 of the Civil Procedure Code.
PPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Trincomalee.
H. V. Perera, for plaintiff, appellant.
No appearance for defendant, respondent.
October 22, 1928. Fisher C.J.—
For the purposes of this case it must be taken that the defendant,the judgment-debtor, carries on the trade or business of a fisherman,and the only question for our decision is whether a fishing boat,18 cubits in length and 5 cubits in girth, is an implement of trade orbusiness within the meaning of section 218 of the Civil ProcedureCode, and not liable to seizure or sale.
I do not think that the fact that a boat is, as the learned DistrictJudge said, “absolutely necessary to those who are engaged in thebusiness of fishing in this part of the country,” is conclusive of thematter. In my opinion there is very little distinction betweenthe word “tools” and the word “implements” as used in thispart of this section, and I think by the word “implement” isintended something which is actually handled for the purpose ofcarrying on the trade or business and would not include a boat,which is in the nature of a vehicle. A man may say that withouthaving the boat he cannot catch fish, but he does not actuallycatch fish with the boat. It is not part of his tackle. A boat canbe used for other things besides for the purpose of goings fishing.It differs it that respect from an implement of husbandry as forinstance a plough. Colloquially one would never think of speakingof a boat as an implement of trade or business, and I do not thinkthe law intended that the expression should be construed as aterm of art having a wider significance that it does colloquially.
For these reasons I think that the decision of the learned Judgein holding that it was an implement of trade or business and exemptfrom seizure or sale was wrong. His order, therefore, will be setaside, and the appellant is entitled to his costs in this Court and inthe Court below.
Garvin J.—I agree.
DE SILVA v. KONAMALAI