137-NLR-NLR-V-23-SARANGAPANY-v.-CORNELIS-APPU.pdf
( m )
1921
Present: Shaw J.
SARANGAPANY v. C0RNELD3 APPU.
332—P. C. BadvUa, 14,492.
Hatting a cart during night by the road side—Police Ordinance, e. 63 (3)—
Proof of inconvenience or danger to the public.
The accused was charged under section 63 (3) of the PoliceOrdinance, 1865, with having halted his bullock cart on a side of apublic road, without oxen being yoked, insuch a manner 88 to .causeInconvenience and danger to the public.
Held, that as the charge fell under the second part of the section,there should be proof of inconvenience or danger to the public.
Leaving of carta by the road side in the night is contrary to law;the charge should be under the first part of section 63 (3).
L. H. de Alwis, for the appellant.
Janet, C.G., for the Crown.
April 18,1921. ShawJ.—'
The accused was charged with having on March 1 at Haputalehalted his double bullock cart on the side of the public road, withoutthe oxen being yoked, in such a manner as to cause inconvenience 1
lHE facts appear from the judgment.
1 {1912) 16 N. L, 5. 323.
( m )
and danger to the public. He has been fined Be. 2*50 and has 1921.
appealed. The charge is made under section 53 (3) of the Police
Ordinance, 1865. That sub-seotion is divided into two parts. The . Shawfirst part runs as follows: “ Any person who shall keep any cattle Sarangapanyor conveyance of any kind in any road or street longer than required Vtfor loading and unloading goods, or for taking up or setting down.passengers/9 The second part of the section is “ or who shall leaveany cattle or conveyance in such a manner as to cause inconvenienceor danger to the public/9 In each of these cases the person whodoes what is prohibited is liable to certain penalties upder the section.
The present charge is dearly a charge under the second part of thesub-section. It is for leaving the conveyance in juch a manneras to cause inconvenience or danger to the public. For the purposeof getting a conviction under this part of the section, it is necessaryfor the prosecution to establish by affirmative evidence that theconveyance was left so as to cause either inconvenience or danger tothe public. The evidence in the ease hot only does not provethis, but expressly .disproves this. It is drown that the convey-ance was left by the side of the road, which, although it is the publicroad, leads only to the railway goods shed and to a place wherepetrol is stored for the use of motor cars. But there was no trafficalong this road at the time when this cart was left there. There wasplenty of room for vehicles to pass, although there was no dangerexperienced by anyone in consequence of the cart being left whereit was. It is also in evidence that, for thelast ten years, people havebeen allowed to lea ve their carts in this position near the goods shed,because there is no gala in the near neighbourhood. All this seemsto show that inconvenience and danger to the public have not beenexperienced from carts being in this place. The Magistrate thinksthat inconvenience or danger is necessarily caused to the public inconsequence of the cart bring by the side of the road. But I thinkit was necessary that this should have been proved, and that itcannot be assumed without proof. I think the authorities are verylikely entirely right in trying to prevent this practice which hasgrown up of leaving carte in this place, and the Magistrate is per-fectly right in saying that such a practice is contrary to law. It iscontrary to the first part of the provisions of the sub-section that Ihave mentioned, and had the charge been properly framed againstthe accused under the first part of the sub-section, the convictionwould have been good. The charge having been made as it is underthe second part of the section, it must foil, because the evidencedoes not support the charge there stated, namely, that inconvenienceor danger had been caused to the public. I allow the appeal, and setaside the conviction.
Appeal allowed.
35