109-NLR-NLR-V-54-W.-H.-DHARMASENA-Appellant-and-S.-M.-B.-SIRIWARDENA-Inspector-of-Police-Re.pdf
4S4
SWAN J.—Dharrna.sena ti.- Siriwardena
1953Present; Swan J.
W. H. DHARMASENA, Appellant, and S. M. B. SIRiWARDENA(Inspector of Police), Respondent
S. C. 912—M. O. Walasmulla, 7,557
Motor Traffic Act, No. 14 of 1951—Section 32—Licence—Provision for carriage ojpersona and their “ personal effects ”—Meaning of “ personal effects ”.
Where a licence issued to an owner of a motor vehicle under section 32 othe Motor Traffic Act authorised the use of the vehicle for “ the carriage,otherwise than for fee or reward, of persons and their personal effects ”—
Held, that vegetables (not being merchandise for sale) carried by passengerson the hood of the vehicle were their “ personal effects ” within the meaningof the terms of the licence.
./^.PPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Walasmulla.A. H. C. de Silva, with A. K. Premadasa, for the accused appellant.
N. Tittawella, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. wit.
January 13, 1953. Swan J.—
The accused who was the driver of Station Wagon CL 1449 was chargedwith having on 11th February, 1952, carried certain goods in the vehiclein contravention of the conditions of the licence issued to the owner underSection 32 of the Motor Traffic Act, No. 14 of 1951. The licenceauthorizes the use of the vehicle for “ the carriage, otherwise than for feeor reward, of persons and their personal effects”.
When the Police stopped and examined the vehicle on the day inquestion it was found to contain no less than twenty-six passengers, andon the hood, which was constructed to carry goods, there were two bagsof radishes, one bag of brinjals and two bunches of plantains. Thesewere claimed by some of the passengers, and the learned Magistrate hasfound that they did in fact belong to the persons who claimed them.He however convicted the accused because he was of the opifiion thatthese goods eould not be said to be the “ personal effects ” of the passengerswhose property they were.
The accused did not give evidence but the owner of the bus, who wascalled by the prosecution to produce the licence, stated that he used thevehicle to convey some workmen to a building site where they were
STV AZST J.—Dhartnasena v. Siriwarderut
4SS
putting up a boutique for him. TTia explanation was that these workmenhad. bought some vegetables and were taking them back home. As thelearned Magistrate himself remarks, this hardly explains how such alarge quantity of vegetables was carried in the vehicle ; and as the ownerhad only workmen, no explanation was given why the vehicle wasconveying as many as twenty-six persons. Very probably the otherpassengers were being conveyed by the accused for fee or reward, but theaccused was not charged with that offence. The simple question there-fore to decide is whether the vegetables on the hood of the vehicle werethe personal effects of the persons who laid claim to them.
The expression “ personal effects ” is not defined in the Motor TrafficAct. Section 32 enacts that—’
“ every revenue licence (other than a dealer’s licence or visitor’stemporary licence) for a motor vehicle shall be issued by the licensingauthority in such one of the prescribed forms, as may be appropriateto the case, shall be in force from the date on which it is expressedto come into force and shall, save as otherwise expressly provided inthis Part, continue in force until the thirty-first day of Decembernext following that date. ”
The appropriate prescribed form is found in the Government GazetteNo. 10,286 of the 25th August, 1951, Part I, page 1127. There is noindication there what the term “ personal effects ” connotes. We havetherefore to ascertain its meaning by the usual canons of interpretation.
In legal language the word personal is often used in contradistinctionto real. In the Oxford Dictionary it is defined as “ one’s own, individual,private ”, and almost every other dictionary gives the same connotationto the word. The word “ effects ” is defined in Stroud’s Dictionary asfollows :—
“ Effects used simpliciter will carry the whole personal estate e.g.all my effects. But it is frequently used in a restricted sense, meaninggoods and movables e.g. furniture and effects …. ”
The definition of effects in the Imperial Dictionary is “ goods, movables,personal estate ” and we are given, by way of example, “ the people escapedfrom the town with their effects”.
Learned Crown Counsel contended that the expression “personaleffects ” used in the licence must be taken to mean “ luggage ” and nothingmore. “ Imggage ” undoubtedly is confined to what is “ lugged abouton a journey for personal convenience ” (see Stroud’s Dictionary, page1130). In the case of Hudston v. the Midland Railway Company 1 it washeld that a child’s “ spring horse ” was not ordinary or personal luggage.Undoubtedly the bags of vegetables in question would not be the ordinaryor personal luggage of the passengers who claimed them ; but could itbe said that they were not part of their personal effects ?
1 {1869) 4 Q. B. 366.
466
SWAISf J.—t)harmaeena v. SiriwarAe.net
Learned Crown Counsel also referred me to the note on “ personaleffects ” in Words and Phrases (1914 Ed. Vol. 3 at page 1001) whichreads as follows
“ The words * personal effects ’ in a will, when not restricted by thecontext, mean everything embraced within the description ‘ personalproperty’ Gallagher v. McKeague, 103, N. W. 233, 234, 125 Wis. 116,110 Am. St. Rep. 821.
Merchandise for sale is not within the usual definition of ‘ personaleffects ’, nor within Customs Administrative Act June 10, 1890,c. 407, Sec. 4, 26 Stat. 131, providing that, except in case of ‘ personaleffects no importation of any merchandise shall be entered withoutinvoice. United States v. One Trunk, 175 Eed. 1012, 1015. ”
But there is no evidence to justify the conclusion that the vegetablescarried on the hood were “ merchandise for sale ” although one suspectsthat they could not have been taken for any other purpose. In the resultI would hold that they were the “ personal effects ” of the persons to whomthe learned Magistrate has held they belonged.
If the licensing authorities desired to restrict the use of the vehicleto the conveyance of passengers and their luggage they should not haveused the expression “ personal effects ”.
I set aside the conviction and acquit the accused.
Appeal allowed.