SAMARAKOON v. CROOS et al.

SAMARAKOON v. CROOS et al.

P. C., Chilaw, 11, 332.

Selling arrack contrary to tenor of license-Sale at a different place-Non- liability of licensee-Liability of sub-renter--Section 9 of Ordinance

No. 13 of 1891.

The accused, who were the purchasers of the monopoly of retailing arrack in the Chilaw District for the year 1896, were charged with " having caused to be sold on their account by retail " at Rajakadaluwa, instead of at Tingaloya near the bridge, " contrary to the tenor of the license bearing No. 29 of 1st July, " 1896, and thereby having committed an offence punishable under " section 9 of sub-section 3 of Ordinance No. 13 of 1891. "

The accused proved that they had sold this particular tavern to a third party, and that they were not aware of this alleged infringement of the license.
 

Held, that the accuseds could not be convicted of the offence with which they were charged.

Bonser, C. J. -The principle appears to be that if a licensed person delegates his authority to another and places him in complete charge of the premises, he substitutes that person for himself, and is liable for any breach of the licensing laws

Click Here to Read the rest of this document