032-NLR-NLR-V-51-MISILIN-Appellant-and-BABUNHAMY-Respondent.pdf
MitUin v. Batnmhamy
143
1949Present: PulleJ.MISILIN, Appellant, and BABTJNHAMY, Respondent.
8. C. 142—G. R. TangdUa, 17,557
Da tnagea—Tort—Defence, of bona fides.
Defendant shot plaintiff’s trespassing cow in the mistaken belief thatit was a wild boar.
Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages.
^LpPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Tangalla.Vernon Wijttunge, for plaintiff appellant.
K. Premadaaa for defendant respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
144
i’ULLK ,T.—Mitiltt* t Babunha>>.tf
November 10, 1949. Pull® J.—
Tbe plaintiff-appellant instituted this action to recover a sum ofRs. 200 alleging that the defendant-respondent caused the death of acow belonging to the plaintiff on the night of the 29th October, 1947,without lawful cause. The learned Commissioner of Requests acceptedthe evidence given by the defendant to the effect that he heard thesound of an animal destroying his plantation at about 3 or 4 a.m., onthe night of the 29th October, 1947, and that he shot at it thinking itwas a wild boar, lie discovered in the morning that the animal thathe had shot was a cow. Counsel for the appellant submitted that thelearned Commissioner was wrong in accepting the evidence of the defen-dant. The appellant had not, however, obtained leave to appeal onthe facts and therefore the argument was confined solely to the questionwhether the shooting of the animal in the circumstances deposed to bythe defendant gave rise t-o a cause of action to the plaintiff.
The point is covered by two local authorities cited at the argumont,namely, Grenier’s Reports (1873-1874, Page 36) C. R. Itatnapura 9108-9220 and the case of SiUappu v. Sintuippu1 which have held that theshooting of a cow in the mistaken belief that it is a wild animal am? forthe purpose of protecting one’s own plantation is not actionable. Iwould, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.
A ppzal dismiaoed.
» (1900) 3 N. L. R. p. 345.