083-NLR-NLR-V-01-QUEEN-v.-DE-SILVA.pdf
( 296 )
1896.
November t.WlTHBBS, J.
QUEEN v. DE SILVA.C., Oalle {Criminal), 12,156.
Intentionally giving false evidence—Trial of offence by the Judge before whomsuch evidence was given—Propriety of such trial.
Where a witness has intentionally given false evidence in a case beforea District Judge, it is not improper on his part to try him for suchoffence upon a committal duly made.
But it would have been more satisfactory if at such trial he had theassistance of assessors.
T
HE accused in this case was found guilty on the 10th October,1895, by Mr. H. L. Moysey, District Judge of Galle, of
intentionally giving false evidence in another criminal case ^(No. 12,130) heard and determined by him on the 5th June, 1895.The accused was sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment.
On appeal, Dornhor.it appeared for him.
1st November, 1895. Withers, J.—
I do not see my way to disturb the judgment or interferewith the sentence.
The chief point made by Mr. Dornhorst was, that this case wastried and determined by the same Judge before whom theaccused was alleged to have given false testimony in certaincriminal proceedings taken a few months ago before him.
However honourable and just a Judge may be (and, as admittedby counsel, no Judge could be more honourable and just than thepresent one), it was urged that he must come with a certain biasin his mind to the determination of the question which he hadintentionally decided against the accused on a former occasion.This, however, it seems to me, is a risk that must be run sometimesin the course of a judicial inquiry.
For instance, as Mr. Dornhorst mentioned, the same jury whoheard them made are very often called upon to try the questionwhether a man is guilty of making contradictory statements,and so forth.
I need only say that I wish it had occurred to the Judge in thisinstance to call in the assistance of assessors. Assistance of thiskind is very valuable to a Judge in case of falsehood or fraud.
But after such a careful and patient trial as this accused hashad in the present instance, I do not think it necessary to sendthe case for re-trial before the same Judge with assessors.
( 297 )
SOMASUNDARAM v. IBRAHIM SAIBU.
D. C., Chilaw, 1,173.Principal and agent—Power of attorney to minor—Civil Procedure Code, *. 24.A minor bolding a general power of attorney for his principal abroadis competent to act as his agent for the limited purposes mentioned insection 24 of the Civil Procedure Code.
1896.
Septembers.Withkbs, J.
U
NDER section 650 of the Civil Procedure Code, plaintiffobtained against the defendant a warrant in mesne process
and had him arrested. He entered into a security bond and wasreleased. On the 9th May, 1895, he moved to take the plaintoff the file and to be discharged from the security bond, on theground (1) that he had paid and settled the promissory note suedupon; (2) that Somasundaram Chetty, who held the plaintiff’spower of attorney, and through whom the action was instituted,was a minor below the age of twenty-one years ; and (3) that theallegations made by Somasundaram Chetty in support of hismotion for the warrant in mesne process were false and vexatious.
The District Judge allowed the defendant’s motion afterevidence heard.
Plaintiff appealed.
Domhorst appeared for appellant, and Sampayo for defendantrespondent.
3rd September, 1895. WITHERS, J.—
The plaint has been ordered to be struck off the file, and it isthis order of the 9th June last which has been appealed from.
The action is to recover money on a promissory note. Theplaintiff is one Palaniappa Chetty, and the suit is instituted by hisattorney, Somasundaram Chetty.
It is because this attorney has not attained the age of twenty-oneyears that the order complained of was made.
The question here is really this,—May not a minor holding thegeneral powers of attorney for his principal abroad, which isindicated in section 25 (b) of the Civil Procedure Code, act asa recognized agent for the limited powers mentioned in section 24 ?
The said Somasundaram Chetty holds such a power; thenwhy should he be not allowed to appear and act as the recognizedagent of his principal ? He has appointed an attorney-at-lawto prosecute his principal’s suit.
He is a young man of twenty, and has been engaged in tradefor the last three years. The English law which governs therelations of principal and agent in this Colony is not against him—that I am aware of. A naked authority which is delegated by aVol. I.2 Q
( 298 )
18JB. power of attorney may be exercised by any one whether suijuritoSeptember 3. or not) bq jong as he is of sane mind. (Co. Lttt. 52 a.)
Withies, j. This is a pore delegation involving no liability, and I do not seewhy a person of competent understanding, and being one of thepersons mentioned in the said section 25, should not be allowedto act as a recognized agent. He simply represents his principalwhen he appears, and is his mouthpiece when he makes anapplication. He is in no sense a public officer who must be tuijuris.
I do not think this order should have been made, and I wouldremit the record for trial in due course.
Plaintiff will have his costs.
Browne, A. J., agreed.