011-NLR-NLR-V-23-JAYASINGHE-v.-SILVA.pdf
( 28 )
1921.
Present: De Sampayo J.JAYASINGHE v. SILVA.
848—P. C. Kandy, 6,624.
Cruelty to animals—General instructions by owner to carters not to usebulls with injuries—Charge against owner.
■ ' .The accused who was a cart contractor owning several carts and
bulls was charged with having permitted his carters to use animalswith sore necks and which were unfit for use. The accused pleadedthat he had given general orders to his carters not to use bullswith injuries.
Held, that'it was not a defence to the charge.
/• /
f I^HE facte appear from the judgment.
H. y. Pereta, for appellant.
Bartholomey&z, for respondent.
{1907) 11 N>L.B. 39.
1921'
( 2?:>
September 16,1921. Db Sampayo J.—= •
This is a prosecution under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ja^wtoyheOrdinance. The accused'was a contractor owning 18 pairs of bulls . SUwand as many carts, which were driven by carters employed by him..
Three of these carters, Suaris, Sundara, and Kalu Banda, appear tohave been prosecuted for using in the carts given to them animalsunfit for use. In the present case the Inspector of the Society forthe Prevention of Cruelty to Animals charged the accused withhaving permitted the men named to use the animals on the respectivedates. Of these charges, the Magistrate has selected one, namely, thecase in which Banda had used a pair of bulls on June 13 last. Byreason of the fact the ^Inspector gave evidence in regard to all thecases the evidence is ndt clear, but it has been sufficiently provedthat the animals used by Banda on June 13 had sore necks. Thedefence practically is that the accused was not aware that thebulls had these injuries, and, therefore, it cannot be said that hepermitted Banda to use them in that condition. It is hardlypossible to prove knowledge by direct evidence. It appears, however,that the accused’s bulls and carts were kept in the garden behind hishouse, and it is not an unfair inference that the accused saw andknew the condition of the animals in that garden. The accusedfurther suggests that the particular pair of bulls went a longdistance, and that when they started from his premises they had nosore necks, but on account of the hffi/dg$tufe of the road over which'the cart passed with goods and the length of the journey hadthese contusions on their return. If that be the state of affairs,undoubtedly the accused cannot be said to have permitted animalswith sore hecks to be used in his carts. But the evidence of theVeterinary Surgeon of Kandy and the othpr evidence in the caseappear to negative the idea of the bulls getting these, contusionsafter they left the accused’s premises. The accused, however,stated in his defence that he had given general orders to his cartersnot to use bulls with injuries, and that if Banda, in the present case,had used the bulls in an unfit condition, he did so against his ownorders. I agree with the Magistrate that it is not enough for theowner of a large number of animals to give general orders like this.
This is all the more so, as in this cake the. “ gala ” is situated in thevery premises of the accused’s house, and was under the directcontrol of the accused. In this connection I am indebted to Mr.Bartholomeusz for reference to the case Fernando v. PedroAppuhamy,* in which Acting Chief Justice Shaw took the same viewas regards a plea of ignorance and as regards general orders of thekind I have mentioned. I am unable to interfere in this case.
The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Vol. 3, Ceylxm WetJdy Reporter, p. 61.