113-NLR-NLR-V-02-VON-HAGT-v.-HARMANIS-et-al.pdf
1896.
duly 16
ana Si.
( 260 )
VON HAGT v. HARMANIS et al.
P. C., Ratnapura, 12,204.
Sale of arrack contrary to tenor of license-—Non-liability of tavern-keeper—Liability of licensed renter—Ordinance No. 13 of 1891, s. 9,sub-section 3.
Where a tavern-keeper,, appointed by the licensee of a tavernto sell arrack for the licensee’s benefit, sells arrack contrary tothe tenor of the license, the liability to punishment under sub-section 3 of section 9 of. Ordinance No. 13 of 1891 attaches to thelicensee, and not to the tavern-keeper.
T
'HE accused, who was a tavern-keeper appointed by the licenseeof the tavern, was convicted of the offence of “ disposing of
“ arrack contrary to the tenor of the license,” under sub-section 3of section 9 of Ordinance No. 13 of 1891, and was sentenced to onemonth’s rigorous imprisonment. The accused appealed on thepoint of law that he was not liable to be convicted.
Domhorst (Fernando and Jayawardena with him), for appel-.lant. The conviction is wrong. It is the licensee and not hisservant who is liable. This belongs to a class of offences for whichthe master is criminally responsible for his servant’s acts. Hecited Commissioners of Police v. Cartman (1896), 1 Q. B. 655.
Seneviratne, for respondent. The master is not criminallypunishable for his servant’s acts whatever other liability he mayincur. The words of the Ordinance are sufficient to cover everyperson who sells arrack contrary to the tenor of the license.
Cur. adv. vull.
21st July, 1896. Lawbee, J.—
This appeal succeeds on the point of law. Neither of the accusedwas the licensee, who, by the terms of his license, was bound tosell arrack at Rs. 4*48, and at no other price.
The accused were authorized by the licensee to sell for him andfor his benefit, and if they sold arrack for a less price than Rs. 4*48the licensee, and not the agent, is liable to punishment.