019-NLR-NLR-V-36-ZAIN-v.-ABEYSINGHE.pdf

Intermeddling with suitors—Drawing up a petition for a suitor—OrdinanceNo. 11 of 1894, s. 5.
To draw up a petition for a suitor, at his request, regarding a pendingcase, does not amount to " intermeddling ” within the meaning of section 5of Ordinance No. 11 of 1894.
^ PPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Galle.
M. C. Abeywardene, for accused, appellant.
Cur. adv. vult.
February 21, 1934. Poyser J.—
The accused has been convicted under section 5 of Ordinance No. 11 of1894, of accosting and meddling with one Tuduwe Kankanange JamesAppu, a suitor in Court of Bequests, Galle, case No. 13,820.
The case for the prosecution was that T. K. James Appu, the plaintiffin the above case, was induced by the accused, a petition drawer, tosend a petition to the Court in connection with the case and before itsconclusion.
«Sf
It was not alleged that the inducement took place in or within theprecincts of the Court, in fact it appears from the evidence that theaccused did not accost T. K. James Appu but that the latter went to theaccused’s office and related his grievances in connection with the case.
The accused then suggested the sending of a petition and James Appuagreed to that suggestion and instructed the accused what to include inthe petition and paid him a small fee for drawing it up.
This Court has in the past found the application of this section difficult.In the case of Mesu v. Karunaratne *, Wendt J. held that a person whodrew up a plaint for a suitor at the suitor’s request cannot be said tomeddle without lawful excuse, and also stated in the course of hisjudgment that “ this section is so vague that it has practically been adeadletter
Jayewardene J., in Inspector of Police, Kurunegala v. Sabapathy *,describes section 5 as “an extraordinary enactment ”, and in Narayen~swami v. Deogu *, Lawrie J. appeared to consider that in order to constitutean offence under this section the attempt to meddle must be made “ in aCourt
The view of Lawrie J. was not accepted in a later case, for in Keegal v.Assen Lebbe*, Wood Renton J. dissented from this decision and consideredthat the act of meddling need not ncessarily be in a Court, and in regardto the judgment of Wendt J. he pointed out that section 5. is a part of theliving law of the Colony, and that it is the duty of the Court in everyprosecution which may be instituted under it to see whqjher it covers thefacts.
iJN. L. R. 146.*25 N. L. R. 61.
» 2 N. L. R. 8^* 9 N. L. R. 147.
POYSER J-—Zain v. Abeysinghe.
.88In my opinion the principles to be followed in cases under this sectionare those laid down by Wood Renton J. and applying them to this casethere are two points to be considered.
The first point is whether the accused “ accosted ” James Appu. Itis clear from the evidence that he did not, for James Appu went to theaccused’s office and of his own accord related his alleged grievances.
The second point is whether the accused “ meddled without lawfulexcuse All the accused did was to draw up a petition on James Appu'sinstructions. I do not consider that act was “ the unauthorized act ofone who is busy in things that ought not to concern him (See definitionof “ meddling ” in judgment of Jayewardene J. (supra) at page 64.)
The petition drawer’s occupation is a recognized one and I agree withWendt J. (supra) that the Ordinance could not have been intended toprevent one person writing out for another a document which the lattercould not compose or write himself.
In my opinion the facts proved in this case do not support theconviction.
The appeal is allowed and the conviction set aside.
Set aside.