Van Langenberg V. Veerasamy

1914 Present: Lascelles C. J.

VAN LANGENBERG v. VEERASAMY.

349-P. C. Kalutara, 29, 759.

Harbouring a deserting cooly-Labour Ordinance, No. 11 of 1865, s. 19- May assistant superintendent prosecute in offences against the Labour Ordinance ?

An assistant superintendent of an estate charged the accused under section 19 of Ordinance No. 11 of 1865 for harbouring a deserting cooly. The objection taken in appeal that the complaint should not have been accepted, as it was made by the assistant superintendent and not by the superintendent, was over-ruled.

The proprietor of a tea estate Is prima facie a proper person to prosecute. But his duly authorized agents are equally competent for the purpose.

The opinion that an assistant superintendent cannot make complaints of offences against the Labour Ordinances rests on no solid ground either of principle or of authority.

Hall v. Kandeswamy 1 doubted.

THE facts are set out in the judgment.

Wadsworth, for accused, appellant.

A. St. V. Jayewardene, for complainant, respondent.

foot notes:

1 5 A. C. R. 125.

May 20, 1914. LASCELLES C. J. -

This is an appeal from the conviction of the accused

Click Here to Read the rest of this document