058-NLR-NLR-V-22-SMALL-v.-KARNELIS.pdf
( 188 )
1920.
Present: Bertram C. J.
SMALL v. KARNELIS.
662—P. C. Batnapura, 15,801.
Labour Ordinance, No. 11 of 1865, s. 19—Employment of cooly belongingto another estate for one day.
To establish a breach of section 19 of Ordinance No. 11 of 1865,
' it is not necessary to show that a person who employed a cooly,who is under a oontract to serve another, did so with the intentionof depriving the other employer permanently of the cooly; evenemployment for a day was held to be an offence.
fJTHE facts appear sufficiently from the judgment.
Milan Pereira, for the appellant.
Bartholomewz, for the respondent.
September 10, 1920. Bertram C.J.—
A point of law Was raised in this case. Two coolies, who belongto one estate, were found employed for one day on a neighbouring- estate upon what was the ordinary work of that estate, namelycinchona barking. The Magistrate has fined the person who wasin charge of the estate on that day Rs. 100, or, in default, two monthsrigorous imprisonment. For the appellant my attention wasdirected to the case of Maddock v. Meydeen,1 where Wendt J.suggested that, iii order to support a conviction under section 19for taking a labourer into service, it was necessary to show anintention to deprive the neighbouring employer permanently of theservant. That was an obiter dictum. It appears on a carefulexamination of Wendt J.’s judgment in that case that what heintended to Bay was that the taking of a man into one’s employmenton fitful and isolated occasions for odd jobs would not necessarilyamount to a taking of a man into one’s service within the mean-ing of that section. I think that the law has been more exactlyexplained by Grenier J. in Taylor v. Carlina Hamy,2 and it seems tome that the facts of this case come rather within the principles thereenunciated. At the same time, I think that the penalty imposedmust be reduced. The fine is reduced to Rs. 50, or, in default, toone month’s simple imprisonment.
Sentence varied.
1 (1917) 1 Leader L. R. 54.4 (1910) 5 Bed., Notes of Cases 25.