( 383 )
Present: Jayewardene A. J.SHEFFIELD v. KANDIAH.
15.—M. C. Colombo, 5,624.
Vehicles Ordinance—Right of appeal—Complainant—Ordinance No. 4of 1916, s. 49.
A right of appeal lies against an order made by a Police Magis-trate under seotion 49 of the Vehicles Ordinance. The right isgiven to all persons who are aggrieved by an order made in thecourse of proceedings under that seotion.
Henry v. Almoihare1 followed.
PPEAL by the complainant from an order dismissing a claim. made by him to recover summarily a sum of money due for
the hire of taxi-cabs under section 49 of the Vehicles Ordinance.
H. V. Perera, for appellant.Oarvin, for respondent.
June 20, 1925. Jayewabdehe A.J.—
In this case I see no reason to interfere with the' order madeby the learned Police Magistrate. The complainant proceededsummarily under section 49 of the Vehicles Ordinance, No. 4 of
»(1901) 10 N. L. R. 3S3.
( 384 )
J AYE WAR-DENS A.J.
1916, to recover a sum of Rs. 609*12 due for the hire of certaintaxi-cabs. The accused disclaimed all liability to pay the amount.The Magistrate upheld his disclaimer and has dismissed thecomplainant's application. The complainant appeals against theorder. For the accused it is contended that the order is not anappealable one. I am unable to uphold this contention. I thinksection 39 of the Courts Ordinance entitles an aggrieved partyto appeal to this Court against all orders made by any Police Court,and this Court has the power to correct all errors in fact or in lawcommitted by any Police Magistrate. This section was so construedby Hutchinson C.J. in the case of Henry w. Almoihare (supra) wherehe held in a cattle trespass case under the provisions of OrdinanceNo. 9 of 1876, that an appeal lay from an order for the payment ofdamages under that Ordinance. The accused's contention againstthe right of appeal is that the inquiry into an offence under section49 has to be summary. The Cattle Trespass Ordinance, No, 9 of1876, empowers a Police Court to summarily inquire into the caseand award damages. So an inquiry into a claim under the CattleTrespass Ordinance is also a summary one, but the right to appealwas upheld. I would accordingly hold that a right of appeal liesagainst an order under section 49 of the Vehicles Ordinance, and thatthat right is not restricted to accused persons, but to all personswho are aggrieved by an order made in the course of the proceedingsunder that section. Consequently, I heard the appeal of thecomplainant and I think the learned Magistrate has come to aright conclusion on the facts. He has held that the accusedKandiah did not go with Ponnudurai when the order for the hireof the cars was given. It is also proved that accused Kandiahsigned the receipts A1-A5 at the request of Ponnudurai’s father,and that he signed them for the purpose of acknowledging thecorrectness of the amounts claimed and not with the object ofincurring any liability for them. This is clear from the letter D 6produced by the complainant. Having considered the evidence,I have no doubt whatever that the person who ordered the carsfor use on September 27 last was Ponnudurai, and not this accused.I would accordingly dismiss the appeal. The respondent’s Counselasks that an order for costs be made in his favour. The Magistratehas not made any order for costs. The respondent has not appealedagainst the failure of the Magistrate to award costs, and in all thecircumstances of the case I do not feel called upon to make anyorder for the costs of this appeal.