023-NLR-NLR-V-34-MOHAMADU-KANDU-v.-APPUHAMY.pdf
1931
Present: Garvin S.P.J.
MOHAMADU KANDU v. APPUHAMY.
Ill—C. R. Anuradhapura, 17,323.
Damage—Cattle destroyed by cattle shooter—No written authority fromGovernment Agent—Liability.
A cattle shooter, who caused damage, in the bona fide belief of the, sufficiency of the written authority he holds—when in fact the authoritywas bad—is not exempt from civil liability.
A
PPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests,Anuradhapura.
C. V. Ranawake, for plaintiff, appellant.
H. H. Basnayake^C.C., for defendants, respondents.
GARVIN S.PJ.—Mohamadu Kandu v. Appuhamy.
81
October 21, 1931. Garvin S.P.J.—
The plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of his action to recover asum of Rs. 150 alleged to be the damages caused to him by the act ofthe defendants in shooting and killing a pair of bulls belonging to him.The first defendant is the Vel-Vidane of Eliyadulawa. The personwho actually fired the shots was the second defendant. The area inwhich the incident took place was one which had been proclaimed underthe Rinderpest Ordinance. On September 23, 1930, the VeterinarySurgeon on information received by the first defendant that there weresome stray cattle at Ihala Siyambalawa went to the village in the com-pany of the first and second defendants. TWO bulls were pointed outto him grazing by the side of the tank. They were not tethered. Onquestioning the first defendant the Veterinary Surgeon was informedthat the animals had broken the fence and come in. After makingcertain other inquiries he asked the second defendant to go and shootthe animals, which were shot in the presence of the Veterinary Surgeon.These are the simple facts of the case. There is no evidence againstthe Vel-Vidane save that in the execution of the duties of his officehe informed the Veterinary Surgeon that there were stray cattle withinthis proclaimed area and gave other material information. The shootingwas the act of the second defendant at the instance of the VeterinarySurgeon. No case has been established as against the first defendantand the order of dismissal as far as he is concerned must stand.
As to the second defendant, there can be no question that he shotthese animals and as a result caused damage to the plaintiff. His defenceis that he was authorized by the Government Agent to destroy all straycattle or cattle infected, with rinderpest in certain villages of whichthe village in question was one, and in support of this defence he producedthe document D 1. The document is in the following terms: —
“ By virtue of the powers vested in me by regulations framedunder section 9 of the Ordinance No. 23 of 1909, I hereby authorizeR. M. Banda of Eppawela to destroy all stray cattle or cattleinfected with rinderpest at Mediyawa or other villages of EppawelaKorale. This permit to be in force as long as the said area remainsproclaimed as an infected area under Ordinance No. 25 of 1909.
Sgd. For Gvt. Agent, N. C. P.”
Admittedly the document was not signed by the Government Agent.This is evident on the face of it. Nor indeed is there any evidenceto show by Whom it was signed; the signature itself is not legible. Thesecond defendant has therefore failed to show that he was a ^personwho was authorized by the Government Agent in writing to shoot straycattle in this village. His defence that he was authorized by law to dothe act he did therefore fails.
It was urged in appeal that he did it in the- bona fide belief that thewriting he held was a sufficient authority, but a person who causes damagein such circumstances is not exempt from civil liability because whenhe did the act he believed that he was authorized to do so by law.
82
The Commissioner of Requests has not found on the question of.damages. The plaintiff is clearly entitled to some damages. The casemust therefore go back for the purpose of the assessment of the damageshe has sustained. The appeal so far as it relates to the claim againstthe first defendant is dismissed. The dismissal of the action as againstthe second defendant is set aside. The plaintiff is entitled to judgmentagainst the second defendant for the amount of the damages assessed.by the Commissioner. He is also entitled to the costs of action incurredup to date. Any additional costs which may be incurred in the assess-ment of damages will be in the discretion of' the Commissioner. As tothe costs of.this appeal I make no order. The defendants were representedby one proctor. In appeal the plaintiff has succeeded as against onedefendant and failed as against the other.
Set aside.
4