( 81 )
bull from the hirer. The Magistrate, believing his statement,acquitted him, and made the order complained of.
It was aruged that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to makethis order, because section 413 of the Criminal Procedure Code,under which the order was made, says that it is to be made in acase when an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded;but here, the counsel for the appellant urged, the trial was notconcluded, because the accused was acquitted after the complain-ant and one witness only had been examined for the prosecution,although the complainant had half a dozen more witnesses whomhe might have called. I must say that I cannot appreciate thisobjection. If a trial is not concluded when the accused isacquitted, I am at a loss to understand when it is concluded.
Then it was urged that no offence appears to have been committedwith regard to this bull, because the accused was acquitted. ButI have been referred to a case which is on all fours with thepresent one, decided by my predecessor in this chair, Silva v.Rajelis (1 C. L. R. 39). That case concludes the present appeal,which must he and is now dismissed.
July 6
Bowser, C.J.