MAXRTENSZ J.—Swaminathan v. Suppiah.
1938Present: Maartensz J.
SWAMINATHAN v. SUPPIAH.
253—P. C. Mullaittivu, 14,530.
Accosting proctor—Meaning of expression “other person”—Ordinance No. 11of 1894, s. 5.
A person who without legal excuse accosts a Proctor about his business,or prospective business can be convicted of an offence under section 5 ofOrdinance No. 11 of 1894.
^^PPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Mullaittivu.
Ar. Nadarajah, for accused* appellant.
No appearance for complainant, respondent.
June 22, 1938. Maartensz J.—
The accused appellant was convicted under section 5 of OrdinanceNo. 11 of 1894 as amended by section 3 of Ordinance No. 35 of 1917 ofaccosting Mr. V. T. Swaminather, Proctor, a person having prospectivebusiness in the Police Court of Mullaittivu with respect to his businesstherein.
It appears from the evidence that at the time accused accostedMr. Swaminather a man named Kandapillai was said to have caused hurtto Kanther Muttar'and Kanther Muttar to have caused hurt to Kantha-pillai..
Kanthapillai’s father, Sinnatamby, asked Mr. Swaminather to file acase for Kanthapillai and asked him to accept a small fee. He- wentaway saying he could not pay Mr. Swaminather’s “ normal ” fee. Imme-diately after he left the accused came in and said: “ Some people camehere—we sent because we are appearing on the other side. Have theyretained you or not ? ”
The accused’s defence is that he spoke to Mr. Swaminather at therequest of Sinnamma, sister of Sinnatamby, who told him that she andSinnatamby had been to Mr. Samuel, another Proctor, and found he hadbeen retained by the other side.
MAARTENSZ J.—Swaminathan v. Suppiah.
It was contended in appeal that section 5 of the Ordinance did notapply to a case where a legal practitioner is spoken to in his professionalcapacity. It was argued that section 2 of the Ordinance deals with theoffences in which a legal practitioner is concerned. I do not think 1 canaccede to this argument. The offences punishable under section 2 of theOrdinance are of an entirely different character to the offence penalizedby section 5.
The expression “other person” is wide enough to include a legalpractitioner and I see no reason why a person who without legal excuseaccosts a Proctor about his business or prospective business should not beconvicted and punished under section 5.
The accused’s statement that he was asked by Sinnamma to speak toMr. Swaminather has not been corroborated by her or her brother,Sinnatamby. He has therefore not proved that he had a lawful excusefor speaking to Mr. Swaminather.
The appeal must therefore be dismissed.
SWAMINATHAN v. SUPPIAH