1912 Present: Pereira J.

PIERIS v. HENDRIC SINNO.

821-P. C. Panadure, 40,533.

Servant-Labourer-Ordinance No. 11 of 1865, s. 11-Quitting service without notice.

A carriage painter is a servant within the meaning of Ordinance No. 11 of 1865.

THE facts appear sufficiently from the judgment.

A. St. V. Jayewardene, for the accused, appellant, contended that the conviction was wrong as the accused did not come within the meaning of the term " servant " as defined in Ordinance No. 11 of 1865. The accused is clearly not an " artificer," as he is not a person who makes anything. Morgan v. London General Omnibus Company.1[ L. R. 13 Q. B. D. 322.]

It cannot be said that a painter like the accused is a " labourer." His trade is one which requires skill and experience. It has been held that a lithographing or copying clerk [(1873) 2 Gren. 23], a farrier (Fernando's Rep. 8), and a barber (Raman v. Kanapathy 2[ (1904) 3 Bal 235.]) do not come within the term " servant " under the Ordinance. Similarly, a carriage painter ought to be excluded.

J. W. de Silva, for complainant, respondent, contended that the accused's trade was one which did not req