( 30 )
Present: The Hon. Sir Joseph T. Hutchinson, Chief Justice.PERIS v. SURASINGHE.
P. 0., Qalle, 42,889.
Arrack—“ Disposal”—Removal—Ordinance No. 10 of 1844, s. 14 (1).
Hutchinson C.J.—Where a person removes arrack from hisstore or gets it taken to some other place, whatever may be thepurpose to which he applies it. he “ disposes of ” it within themeaning of section 14 (1) of Ordinance No. 10 of 1844 andcommits an offence under the section.
PPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate.
A. St. V. Jayewardene, for the accused, appellant.
Cur. adv. vull.
December 17, 1908. Hutchinson C.J.—
The appellant, Don Mathes Surasinghe, was convicted of an offenceunder section 14 (1) of Ordinance No. 10 of 1844, that on October 10last he disposed of arrack in a less quantity than 35 gallons at onetime from a licensed distillery, he being at the time in the superin-tendence of the business of the distillery. The watcher employedby the arrack renter to watch the distillery stated that when hewent there oh the 10th to see some arrack stored, the accused waspresent in charge of the store, and that he saw the accused fill a bigbottle with arrack and set it aside and afterwards pick it up and putit under his arm to take away. That the witness tried to preventhis doing so, but that the accused went away with it. He said thathe saw the appellant fill the bottle with arrack from a cask and thatthe bottle was a large one, equal to 4 quarts.. He said that he keptone key of the store, and that the accused kept the other key, andthat the accused told him that the arrack was for his own consump-tion. Another watcher corroborated this evidence.
It was proved that the license for the distillery is in the name ofJ. F. Silva, and that Adonchi Silva is put down as his manager, andrenders weekly returns as manager, and that the accused has aninterest in the business. '"’’Four receipts were produced signed byhim, and were relied oh by the prosecution as evidence that theaccused took part in the management or superintendence. Therewas no evidence for the defence. The Magistrate has found, and theevidence fully justifies the finding, that the accused removed thebottle of arrack from the distillery on October 10, and that he wasat that time “ in the management or. superintendence- ” of the busi-ness. So that the only question is whether the removal, without any
( 31 )
evidence as to the object of it beyond the accused’s statement to thewatcher that the arrack was for his own consumption, is a “ dis-posal ” of it within the meaning of section 14. Section 7 requiresthat aD spirits when distilled are to be deposited in tbe storeconstructed on tbe premises. Section 14 requires that the distillerand other persons there named shall not sell or dispose of any spiritsin less quantity than 35 gallons at a time. Section 33 prohibits theremoval without a permit of spirits in any quantity exceeding a pintfrom any place in the district to any place outside it. The words“ sell or dispose of ” in section 14 are repeated in section 26, whichprohibits the sale or disposal of spirits in less quantity at one timethan 35 gallons without a license. When a man takes liquor fromhis store and removes it or gets it removed to some other place,whatever the purpose may be to which he applies it, whetherfor sale or for his own consumption or for that of his friends, he“ disposes of it ” in the ordinary sense of the words, and his actis one which, in my opinion, the Ordinance meant to prohibitand has prohibited.
I dismiss the appeal.
PERIS v. SURASINGHE