Back
1917 Supreme(SC) 13
Privy Council
Sir Arthur Channell, Wrenbury , Parmoor, Lords Sumner, Justice Lord Parker of Waddington, JJ.
In the matter of part cargo ex steamship "Belgia". -Appellant
Versus
. -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 123 of 1916
Decided On : 23-02-1917
The court established that there is a general legal presumption that letters proved to have been mailed arrive in the ordinary course of post, and the burden of proof to rebut this presumption lies with the party disputing the delivery.
Headnote:(A) Evidence - Presumption of postal delivery - As a general rule, the Court will assume, unless the contrary is proved, that letters which are proved to have been mailed do arrive in the ordinary course of post - The burden of proof lies on the party who disputes this inference to show the contrary.
Facts of the case:
The appellants contended that mail sent from one country to another had not arrived at its destination in the ordinary course of post. The lower court concluded that the appellants had failed to prove this non-arrival. The appellants sought to rely on affidavits which were deemed unsatisfactory and subsequently requested leave to introduce additional evidence that could have been procured in the first instance.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of postal delivery, particularly as they failed to obtain direct information from the destination country despite there being no material difficulty in communication.
Issues: Whether the lower court erred in concluding that the appellants had not proved that the mail had not arrived in the ordinary course of post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the general rule that mailed letters are presumed to arrive in the ordinary course of post unless the contrary is proved, and the burden of proof rests on the party challenging this presumption.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- presumptions
- burden of proof
- admissibility of evidence
-
evidence
Lord Parker of Waddington :-
Their Lordships need not trouble the respondent. It appeals that in both these cases the question is really whether the learned President was wrong when he came to the conclusion that the appellants in neither case had proved that the mail from America had not arrived at Frankfort in ordinary course of post. As a general rule the Court will assume, unless the contrary is proved, that letters which are proved to have been mailed do arrive in ordinary course of post, and it is on those who dispute that inference to show the contrary. In both cases the appellants could, had they so desired, have obtained the information direct from Germany. The existence of the war creates no material difficulty in the communication between America and Germany. In both cases they failed to get the information. They tried to induce the learned President to draw the inference that the mail had not arrived from certain very unsatisfactory affidavits as to facts that were put in evidence. Now, when the learned President has decided against them, they ask for leave to put in evidence, which they might have procured in the first instance. Their Lordships have already refused to allow that evidence to be put in, and under those circumstances the only possible thing for the Board to do is to affirm what the learned President has done, and they will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal ought to be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
