( 240 )
Present: Drieberg J.
PILLAI v. MOSS.293—P. C. Matale, 34,355.
Motor car—Licensed to Carry pasxengersSmployed to carry n&ik forhire—Breach of licence—Ordinance No. 20 of 1927, $, 80 (1).
Where a person employed a car, licensed to carry passengersother than for hire, for the purpose of carrying mails for hire,—
Held, that he was guilty of an offence under section 30 (1) of theMotor Gar Ordinance, No. 20 of 1927.
^ PPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Matale.
H. T. Ounasekere, for accused, appellant.
June 11, 1929.Drieberg J.—
The appellant has a contract with Government for the conveyanceof mails, for which he is paid. On the day in question he carriedmail bags in car C 8670 to the Post Office. This car belongs to hisfather and is licensed as a passenger car, other than a hiring car, forwholly or mainly carrying passengers. The appellant was convictedunder section 30 (1) of the Motor Car Ordinance, 1927, on a chargeof using the car for a purpose not authorized by its licence, and hehas appealed.
As the appellant received remuneration for the conveyance ofthe mails he must be regarded as having received hire for the use ofthe car on this day.
Counsel contended that even where a motor car is used for apurpose not authorized by its licence, no offence is committedunder section 30 (1) unless such U6e is one for which a licence isrequired by .the Ordinance: that the Ordinance makes no provisionfor the licensing of motor cars, other than lorries and tractors, forthe carrying of goods for hire, a lorry being defined as a motor carconstructed wholly or mainly for carrying goods or hauling anothervehicle.
It is not necessary to consider whether a motor car not constructedfor the carrying of goods can be used for the carrying of goods forhire without a licence for that purpose ; it is sufficient for the• purposes of section 30 (1) that the car should have been used for apurpose other than for which it was licensed.
The appeal is dismissed.
PILLAI v. MOSS