069-NLR-NLR-V-22-NICHOLAS-v.-THOMAS-APPU.pdf
( 230 )
Present: Be Sampayo J.
NICHOLAS v. THOMAS APPU.
54—0. R. Negombo, 28,127.
Minor running away with money—Action to recover money from minor—Liability of minor.
A minor (over twenty years of age) ran away with a sum ofmoney entrusted to him. In an action to recover the money,—Held, that minority was no defence, as the obligation arftse out ofa delict.
E facts appear from the judgment.
Keuneman, for defendant, appellant.
E. W. Jayawardene, for plaintiff, respondent.
August 20, 1920. De Sampayo J.—
There is no doubt about the plaintiff's right to the money heclaims so far as the facts are concerned. The plaintiff, who hadwith him Rs. 300 in cash, handed the money to the defendant tohold it for him while he was having a bath. The defendant ranaway with the money, and never returned it to the plaintiff. Theplaintiff claims the money from the defendant in this action, andthe Commissioner has given him judgment. It is contended for thedefendant in appeal that the defendant is not liable as he was aminor at the time. His baptismal certificate shows that he wasborn on April 6,1899, so that at the date of the occurrence, namely,on August 25,1919, he was over twenty years of age. The plaintiffframed his action as upon a contract of deposit, but it is obviousthat the circumstances also amount to the commission of a crime ordelict, and I think it is not inequitable to treat the claim on thatfooting. The Roman-Butch law recognizes the liability of a minorfor delict. Qrotius 3, 1, 26 says: “ Municipal law considers allobligations incurred by minors as invalid, except through delicts,or in so far as they have been benefited.” The Roman law, uponwhich this exception as to delicts is founded, regards a minor asliable for crimes and delicts even at the mere age of puberty.For Dig. 50,17, 111 states : “ pupillum, qui proximus pubertaM eit,capacem esse et furandi et injuries faciendmThe minor must nodoubt be represented in the action by a guardian, but the defendantis so represented in this action. Vander Keesed’s Thee. 127, onthis point of procedure, to the effect -that a minor cannot appearin Court without a guardian etiam in ddictis civilibus, necessarilyimplies that minors may be made liable for delicts, provided they areproperly sued. So far as I am aware, this has never been questionedin Ceylon* In Walter Pereira's Institutes, p. 572, the above passage
1920;
( 231 )
in Grotius is cited as an authority for the proposition that a minor'sobligations are valid if incurred through delicts. See also C. R.-Colombo, 90,949, Gfren. Sep. (1874), pt. II., p. 5.
Judgment has, I think, been rightly given for the plaintiff, andthis appeal is, therefore, dismissed, with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
1920.
Dk SamfayoJ.
Niehr.laev. ThomasAppu
«*■