057-NLR-NLR-V-45-JUAN-APPU-Appellant-and-PERERA-Respondent.pdf
216
HEABNE J.—Juan Appu and Per era.
1944Present: Hearne J.
JUAN APPU, Appellant, and PERERA, Respondent.
177—M. M. C. Colombo, 28,167
Milk vendor—Employed to convey milk—not a person employed to expose milk
fa/f sale—Municipal Council By-laws, chapter XIV., rule 7.
Where a person was employed to convey milk from a dairy outsideColombo to a cafA in town for purposes of sale at the cafd,—
Held, that he was not a milk-vendor employed under a registered,dairyman for exposing milk ' for sale within the meaning of rule 7 ofchapter XIV. of the Municipal Council By-laws.
PPEAL from a conviction by the Municipal- Magistrate of Colombo.
P. Malalgoda, for accused, appellant.
No. appearance for respondent.
March 24, 1944. Hearne J.—
The accused in this case was charged with the offence of exposing milkfor sale “ without having in his possession a printed and numbered cardsigned by the Secretary of the Colombo Municipal Council and issued to amilk vendor employed under a registered dairyman for the current year ”,and with having failed to produce on demand such a card for inspectionas required by rule (7) chapter XTV. of the Municipal Council By-lawsas amended by Government Gazette No. 7,903.
The facts of the case are that one J. C. Paiva, Manager of a oaf6 atChatham street, Colombo, purchased milk from one Mr. Peter Fernandoof Wennappuwa, a place outside Colombo town. Payments were mademonthly and the accused was employed by Mr. Fernando to convey themilk from Wennappuwa to Colombo and to deliver it to Mr. Paiva at hiscafA The evidence also proved that on the day in question the accusedwas seen taking a quantity of milk in a can along Chatham street anddelivering it at the .cafA I fail to see that any offence has beencommitted by the accused. He was certainly not, in any sense of theword, exposing milk for sale. What he did was to convey milk on behalfof his employer to J. C. Paiva, the vendee. No offence, in my opinion,was committed by the accused and the appeal is allowed.
Cases in point are—
White v. The Mayor of Yeovil (L. J. Re-ports M.C.N.S. Vol. 61,
page 213.)
Newton in Makerfield Urban Council v. Lyon ( {1900) L. J. Reports,
Vol. 69 Q.B.D., page 230)
Set aside.