( 48 )
Present: Pereira J.SILVA DINESHAMY.805—P- C. Matara, 8,985.
Thoroughfares Ordinance^ No. 10 of 1862, s. 94—Leaving a cart in themiddle of the road without anybody in charge of it
Where a person by neglect left a cart with a bull tied to it in themiddle of the road without anybody in charge of it-r
Held, that he was not guilty of an offence under section 94 of“ The Thoroughfares Ordinance, 1861.”
rp HE facts are set out in the judgment,
Dc Jong, for the accused, appellant.—There ' is no evidencethat the accused wilfully prevented Don Bastian from passingalong the road. The accused moved the cart away as soon as DonBastian spoke to him. The conduct of the accused in leaving thecart in the middle of the road and going to the boutique does notconstitute wilful obstruction.
Cur. adv. vult.
November 14, 1912. Pereira J.—
lu this case the accused has been found guilty under section 94,sub-section (11), of Ordinance No. 10 of 1861. The offence describedin that sub-section is wilfully preventing any person or carriage frompassing along a thoroughfare. The evidence in the case does notshow that there was .any wilful prevention at all on the part of theaccused of any person or carriage from passing along a thoroughfare.Don Bastian, the police officer, is the most important witness inthe case; in fact, he is the person who is alleged to have beenobstructed. . His evidence is that he was passing along in a hackerywhen he found a cart with a bull tied to it on the middle of the roadwithout anybody in charge of the cart. He says he cried out" Who is the owner of the cart? ” and then the accused came frombehind a boutique and said the cart belonged to Mrs. Ekanayake,and the accused moved the cart away. It is clear from this evidencethat this is rather a case of neglect in leaving a- cart on the high roadthan of wilfully preventing any particular individual from passingalong a thoroughfare. I do not think that on this evidence it canbe said that the accused is guilty under section 94 of the Thorough-fares Ordinance, whatever other provision of the law he may havecontravened. Possibly he has committed a breach of a Gansabhawarule.
I set aside the conviction and acquit the accused.
SILVA v. DINESHAMY