112-NLR-NLR-V-01-DANIEL-v.-RODRIGO.pdf
( 383 )
DANIEL v. RODRIGO.P. C.j Pdnadure, 13,728.
1896.
January 31.
Toll—Ordinance No. 14 of of 1867, $>. 7,15—Superintendent of Minor Road*—Certificate of exemption.
Under section 7 of the Ordinance No. 14 of 1867 the GovernmentAgent has no power to issue a certificate of exemption from toll of thecarriages, carts, and horses of the Superintendent of the Minor Roadswhile used in the Public Service on the roads in charge of that officer.
T
HE accused was convicted under the 15th section of theOrdinance No. 14 of 1867 of taking toll from H. L. Daniel,
k
Superintendent of Minor Roads for the Western Province, aperson whom the accused had been directed by the GovernmentAgent of the Western Province to permit to pass without pay-ment of toll.
The certificate of exemption ran as follows:—“ This is to“certify that the carriages, carts,and horses of the Superintendent“ of Minor Roads are entitled to pass free of payment through all“ tolls situated within ten miles of any roads in his charge, when“ those carriages, carts, or horses are travelling upon the Public“ Service. Granted under Ordinance No. 14 of 1867.
“ A. R. Dawson,
“ Government Agent.”
De Saram, for accused appellant.
31st January, 1896. Withers, J.—
The defendant has been convicted under the 15th section of theOrdinance of 1867 of the offence of demanding and takingtoll as toll-keeper from Mr. Daniel, the Superintendent of MinorRoads, an officer exempted by the 7th section of Ordinance No. 14of 1867 from paying toll.
The facts and the law scarcely support this judgment.
The evidence discloses that toll was taken, not from Mr. Daniel,but from his horsekeepers, who were taking a carriage and twohorses of their master back to Colombo.
Mr. Daniel was at Panadur6 when toll was demanded of hisservants. One of them returned and told Mr. Daniel of thedetention, and he gav% his horsekeeper a rupee to pay the tolldemanded. The horsekeeper was given by his master exhibit0, which purports to be a certificate of exemption from toll of thecarriages, carts, and hordes of the Superintendent of Minor Roads
( 384 )
1896. while used on the Public Service on the roads in that officersJanuary 31. charge. It is Bigned by Mr. Dawson as Government Agent andWitbxbs, J. Chairman of the Provincial Road Committee.
This certificate names no one, and is, I suppose, intended for theub6 of the officer for the time being.
This Court has held that a Superintendent of Minor Roads is notliable to pay toll when engaged on any work on a road within tenmiles of the toll station. He derives his immunity in suchcircumstances from the Ordinance itself.
No one appeared in support of the conviction to establish thepower of the Government Agent to grant such a certificate as “ C.”His power is, as far as I know, limited by the provisions of section
7 of the Toll Ordinance of 1867, which enacts :—“and it
“ shall be lawful for the Government Agent, if he shall see fit sqi“to do, to direct the toll-keeper in writing to permit cattle or“sheep driven to grass, persons with cattle, agricultural instru-“ ments, or seed grain for the cultivation of their lands, and“children going to and from school, to pass without payment of
“ toll” This certificate goes beyond these powers.
What I take it Mr. Daniel should have done was to give hishorsekeepers a certificate that they were taking his carriage andhorses back to Colombo on a return from a tour of inspection ofthe roads under his supervision, or on return from supervisingsome particular work within ten miles of the station, as the casemay be.
I think the accused was ill-advised in taking the toll under thecircumstances, but he was not, as it seems to me, breaking the law,and so this judgment must be set aside, and he must be acquittedand discharged.
♦