065-NLR-NLR-V-19-FERNANDO-v.-PIERIS.pdf
( 264 )
1916.
Present : Shaw A.C.J.
FERNANDO v. PIERIS.
221—C. R. Colombo, 50,412.
Action for damages for illegal arrest—Malice—Arrest of one person onwarrant obtained against another.
Malice is immaterial in an action for damages for illegal arrest.
“ The appellant was not, and never had been, known as M. T.Fernando, and bis arrest on a warrant against such a person wasillegal.”
rp HE facts appear from the judgment.
M. W. H. de Silva, for appellant.—The warrant on which theappellant has been arrested is directed against Manadewage ThegisFernando. The appellant has never been known by that name.The respondent is merely an executive officer, who should execute
( 265 )
the warrant against the person named. He cannot arrest someother on the ground that the warrant was meant against that other,though in fact it was so meant (Hoye v. Bush1).
Therebeen malice in this instance; even otherwise the
defendant is liable (De Alwis v. Murugappa Gkettya).
No appearance for respondent.
September 11, 1916. Shaw A.C.J.—
The appellant sued the defendant, who is the Police Vidaue ofWatarappola, for damages of illegal arrest under the followingcirc umstances.
The defendant included in his list of persons liable to pay com-mutation tax the name of one Manadewage Thegis Fernando, andon June 26, 1915, he obtained a warrant for the arrest of that personfor default in payment of the tax.
On November 17, 1915, he arrested the appellant, whose name isSiriwardenadewage Assereiris Fernando, and who, according to theevidence, is not, and never has been, known as Manadewage ThegisFernando, when the appellant had come to Watarappola for awedding. The appellant waB taken to the Police Station, and nextday was taken handcuffed to the Kachcheri, when he was releasedon payment of Bs. 10 as security.
The defendant says he compiled the list on information given byone Neris Fernando, in whose house the appellant was living at thetime, and that he understood that M. Thegis Fernando was theappellant. This Neris denies, but, however it may be, the compi-lation of the list was quite irregular, and it would have been quiteimproper for the appellant to have been placed upon it under anyname, as it was satisfactorily proved by the headman of XJggalbodathat the appellant was residing in that district,' and had paid hiscommutation tax there for the years 1913, 1914, and 1915. Uponhis arrest the appellant informed the defendant that he was notM. Thegis Fernando, but the defendant, nevertheless, insisted on-executing the warrant, and took him to the Police Station from justoutside the house where the wedding was in progress in the presenceof a large crowd of people.
The Commissioner of Bequests has dismissed the action, holdingthat the appellant was the person against whom the warrant wasdirected, and that the arrest was therefore legal. I do not agree.The appellant was not, and never had been, known as ManadewageThegis Fernando, and his arrest on a warrant against such a personwas illegal (Hoye v. Bush1). Malice is immaterial in an action for anillegal arrest, and the appellant is entitled to- recover the damageshe has sustained.
me,
Fernandov. Pieris
i 1 M. 3 G. 775,
2 (1909) 12 N. L. R. 353.
( 266 )
1016,
Shaw A.C.J.
Fernandov. Pierie
I allow the appeal with costs, and set aside the decree and directjudgment to be entered for the plaintiff with costs; the case to besent back to another Commissioner of Bequests to assess the amountof damages.
So far as can be seen from the evidence in the case, there appearsto have been no justification for the appellant to have been hand-cuffed when taken from the Police Station to the Kachcheri, and itis illegal and a gross outrage that a person arrested for non-paymentof taxes should be unnecessarily subjected to such an indignity.
Set aside.
♦