( 153 )
Present: Schneider A.J.
SILVA v. RODRIGO.' 57—C. B. Colombo, 65,593.
Cattle trespass—Jurisdiction of Village Tribunals—Not exclusive.
Section 49 Aof the Village Communities Ordinance confers
jurisdiction upon Village Tribunals in cases of cattle trespass onlywhen the- summary procedure prescribed in sections 7, 8, and 9 ofthe Cattle Trespass Ordinance, 1886, is followed. Those provisionsdo not deprive a person of his ordinary remedies to bring an actionto recover damages in any other Court.'
rJ1HE facts appear from the judgment.
L. M. D. de Silva, for plaintiff, appellant.—The Court of Requestshas jurisdiction. It is true that section 49 a of Ordinance No. 24of 1889 confers jurisdiction on Village Tribunals in cases of cattletrespass even .where the damage exceeds Rs. 20. But this jurisdic-tion in excess of Rs. 20 is limited to cases where the procedureprescribed under sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Cattle Trespass Ordinancehas been adopted.
The summary procedure under sections 7, 8, and 9 of the CattleTrespass Ordinance does not take away the old common law remedyfrom a party aggrieved. Section 10 of that Ordinance conserves theold common law remedy. See 19 N. L. R. 399.
Here the plaintiff has not adopted the procedure under sections
8, and 9. His action is based on his common law rights. TheVillage Tribunal has no jurisdiction, and the action was properlyinstituted in the Court of Requests.
June 6, 1919. Schneider A.J.—
In this case the plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing hisaction, in which he claimed a sum of Rs. 30 as damages caused bythe defendant’s cattle straying into his land and destroying certainrubber plants. The learned Commissioner dismissed plaintiff’saction on the ground that section 49 A of the Village CommunitiesOrdinance, 1889, conferred jurisdiction upon Village Tribunals incases of cattle trespass even where the damage claimed was beyondthe ordinary jurisdiction of such Village Tribunal, and that section34 of that Ordinance renders the jurisdiction of Village Tribunals .exclusive. He therefore thought that the plaintiff should havebrought his action in the Village Tribunal. The reason he has givenfor dismissing plaintiff’s action is clearly wrong. Section 49 aconfers jurisdiction upon Village Tribunals in cases of cattle' trespasswhere the damages claimed are those payable under sections 7,
and 9 of the Cattle Trespass Ordinance, 1886. Those sections
( 154 )
of the Cattle Trespass Ordinance refer to a summary procedureespecially provided in cases of cattle trespass. Those provisionsdo not deprive a person of his ordinary remedies to bring an actionto recover damages for loss suffered by trespassing cattle. TheCourt of Bequests, therefore, had jurisdiction to entertain andtry this action. I set aside the judgment appealed from, and remitthe case for trial upon proper issues. The plaintiff-appellant willhave the costs of the trial in the lower Court, which costs theCommissioner is requested to fix. The plaintiff appellant will alsohave the costs of this appeal.
SILVA v. RODRIGO