THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GALLE v. CASSIM.

Present: The Hon, Mr, A, G. Lascelles, Acting Chief Justice
and Mr Justice Middleton.

THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GALLE v. CASSIM.

P. C., Galle, 28,822.

" Broker "-Person working far one employer-Licence-Ordinance No. 15 of 1889, ss. 13, 18.

A person who works as broker for one employer only and does not offer his services, as such, to the public is exempt from the operation of section 18 of Ordinance No. 15 of 1889.

APPEAL from a conviction under section 18 of Ordinance No. 15 of 1889.

The facts appear in the judgments.

Dornhorst, K.C., for the accused-appellant.

Bawa for the Council.

Cur. adv. vult.

26th March, 1906. LASCELLES A.C.J.-

This is an appeal from a decision of the Police Magistrate of Galle convicting the appellant under section 18 of Ordinance No. 15 of 1889, of carrying on trade or business as a broker without the licence required by the Ordinance. The appellant had previously been acquitted of this offence; but on appeal this Court set aside the acquittal in order to enable the Municipal Council of Galle to-establish such facts as would elicit from this Court a decision which would be binding on them in future cases. The case came on before another Magistrate, who took a different view of the Ordinance and convicted the appellant. It was proved that the appellant was employed by Messrs. Clarke, Spence & Co. in the purchase of goods, principally coir yarn. The course of business was for the appellant to find and introduce to the firm dealers who were willing to sell. By way of remuneration the appellant received a commission of 1\2| per cent on purchases. He gave security to the firm for the advances made to dealers. He also acted as an interpreter to the firm. He was prohibited by the terms of his engagement from acting for any other firm or person. Many authorities have been cited to us to show what should be understood by the terms " broker " and " carrying on business," but I think the safest guide is to be found within the four corners of the Ordinance. The object of the Ordinance as declared in the preamble is to provide for the registration

and licensing of surveyors, and to prevent unlicensed persons from carrying on business as auctioneers or brokers. These three professions are obviously placed under control, because it was considered that the interests of the public require that they should only be practised by persons for whose fidelity and competence there should be some guarantee. The Ordinance is clearly one for the protection of the public. Section 13 provides that a licence is necessary for carrying on trade or business of a broker " and the penal section-section 18-provides for the punishment of " every person who . . . . . .shall carry on or attempt or profess to carry on trade or business as an auctioneer or broker without a licence. " Reading these sections by the light of the preamble, I have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the Ordinance is aimed at persons who offer their services as brokers to the public, and that it does not affect a person, such as the appellant, who works only for one employer, even though his duties are in some respects of the same character as those of brokers whose services are at the disposal of the public. I would set aside the conviction, and I think the appellant should be allowed costs.

MIDDLETON J. -

Defendant was convicted, under section 18 of Ordinance No. 15 of 1889, of carrying on the business of a broker, without having obtained a licence and sentenced to pay a fine of five rupees and in default seven days' imprisonment. The facts of the case were that the accused was in the sole employment of Messrs. Clarke, Spence & Co. at Galle, and his business was to negotiate the purchase of goods for the firm, to act as interpreter between the firm and the vendors, for which services he received a commission on the purchase money. The accused was al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document