r 63 >
Present : Ennis J.
JONES ®, VELLOO.
618—*P. C. Balapitiya, 37,999.
Master and servantr—Insolence—Ordinance No. U of 1805, a. 11.
The assistant superintendent of an estate (complainant), whenenforcing a rule of the estate, treated the wife of the accused some-what roughly. Some time afterwards the accused came sip to thecomplainant and used abusive and insulting language to him.
Held, that accused was guilty of misconduct in the service of the•employer within the meaning of section 11 of Ordinance No. 11 of1866.
N tins case the learned Magistrate (H. J. V. Ekanayake, Esq.)
held that the complainant, met the wife of the accused on .theestate road with a bundle of twigs and leaves, which the estate coolieswere no.t allowed to pluck, and that he treated the woman withsome violence in what he thought was the enforcement of an estaterule. Some time after the accused insulted the complainant byabusing him in offensive terms. The wife of the accused gaveevidence to the effect that the complainant held her by the handand offered her Rs, 5, and asked her to come off the road and getunder a rock in the vicinity. The Magistrate convicted the accused,and sentenced him to one month's rigorous imprisonment.
The accused appealed.
de Zoysa, for the accused, appellant.:—The accused appears tohave had reasons for beleiving that the complainant's conducttowards his wife was improper. Under the circumstances he hada right to remonstrate. In any case the insolence complained ofhad nothing to do with: the service for which accused was employed.The mere impertinence of a cooly to the superintendent is not anoffence under the section. If, for. instance, the cooly was insolentwhen ordered to do anything, that would be an offence. Counsel^cited Edley v. iSuppiah Kangany.1
Balasingham, for the respondent.—The' object of the section is toenable the employer to maintain discipline on the estate. If theaccused thought that the complainant acted improperly, he or hiswife should bring an action against him, but he had no right tobehave insolently towards the master.
Cut. adv. vult.
1 (1879) 2 8. C. C. 72.
September 11, 1913. Ennis J.—
In this case the accused was convicted under section 11 of Ordi-nance No. 11 of 1865 of behaving in an insolent manner towardsthe assistant superintendent of Igalkanda estate. The Magistratehas found .that the assistant superintendent, when enforcing a ruleof the estate, treated the wife of the accused somewhat roughly.Some time afterwards the accused came up to the complainant andused abusive and insulting language to him. It has been urged onthe appeal, although it was not raised in the petition, that this wasnpt misconduct in the service of the employer within the terms ofthe section. In my opinion there can be no doubt that .insolenceto one whose duly it is to superintend on the estate is misconductin the service of the employer. Had the insolence been to a strangerthe argument would have been tenable, but the circumstances ofthis case clearly bring it within the terms of the section.
I see no reason to interfere with the conviction' or sentence, anddismiss the appeal.
JONES v. VELLOO