FERNANDO vs PERERA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Pereira, J
FERNANDO – Appellant
Versus
PERERA – Respondent

Advocates:
THE facts appear sufficiently from the judgment.
Mahadeva with him Bawa, K.C., for the plaintiff, appellant.- Plaintiff sues for damages resulting from the temporary deprivation of the use of the wheels. Under the circumstances plaintiff need
not prove malice to succeed in this action. (De Alwis v. Murugappa Chetty.1) Bona fides is no defence to an action for damages resulting from injury to property. If, for example, A breaks B's watch in the belief that the watch is his, A is nevertheless liable in damages to B.
A. St. V. Jayewardene (with him De Alwis), for the defendant, respondent.-The facts of this case are very different from the facts in De Alwis v. Murugappa Chetty.1[(1909) 12 N. L. R. 353.] There the Fiscal seized the goods when pointed out by the defendant, who was the judgment-creditor. The Fiscal had no option but to seize the property pointed out. The act of the Fiscal was the act of the judgment-creditor.
In this case the police seized the wheels on a complaint made by the defendant. The police officer must exercise his discretion before seizing property said to be stolen. The act of the police officer is not the act of the defendant. Counsel cited 3 Nathan, sections 1648-1650.
Mahadeva submitted Austin v. Bowling[(1870) 5 C. P. 540.]

Fernando V. Perera

1913 Present: Pereira J.

FERNANDO v. PERERA.

470-0. R. Negombo, 19,796.

False charge of theft-Action by accused against complainant for damages consequent on seizure of property by police at the instance of complainant-Proof of malice not necessary.

Defendant charged the plaintiff before the police with the theft of two cart wheels and caused the police to seize and remove the wheels. The plaintiff was acquitted by the Police Court on the charge of theft. In an action by the plaintiff against defendant to recover damages consequent on his being temporarily deprived of his wheels-

Held, that it was not necessary to prove malice in the defendant to entitle the plaintiff to recover damages.

THE facts appear sufficiently from the judgment.

Mahadeva with him Bawa, K.C., for the plaintiff, appellant.- Plaintiff sues for damages resulting from the temporary deprivation of the use of the wheels. Under the circumstances plaintiff need

not prove malice to succeed in this action. (De Alwis v. Murugappa Chetty.1) Bona fides is no defence to an action for damages resulting from injury to property. If, for example, A breaks B's watch in the belie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Pereira, JFERNANDO – AppellantVersusPERERA – Respondent

Pereira, J
FERNANDO – Appellant
Versus
PERERA – Respondent