Menon V. Perera

1914 Present: Lascelles C.J. and Ennis J.

MENON v. PERERA.

506-M. C. Colombo, 5,874.

Motor Car Ordinance, 1907-Rule 43-Sounding horn-Unnecessary annoyance-Interpretation of statute.

Rule 43 of the rules of February 11, 1909, made under the Motor Car Ordinance, 1907, is as follows:-" He (driver) shall, whenever necessary, by sounding a bell or other instrument give audible and sufficient warning of the approach or position of the motor car, care being taken that such bell or other instrument is not used so as to cause unnecessary annoyance or alarm to persons and animals on the road."

Held, that the latter portion of the rule (care being taken, &c.) should be construed as a rule the breach of which is punishable.

THIS case was reserved for argument before two Judges by Ennis J. The facts are set out in the judgment.

J. S. Jayewardene, for accused, appellant.-Rule 43 makes the omission to sound the horn whenever necessary an offence. The sounding of the horn is not made punishable. The latter portion of the rule beginning with the words care being taken " is only directory. The unnecessary blowing of a horn is not an offence. The intention of the law is to get the driver to sound the horn and nothing more.

The evidence in this case shows that annoyance was caused to only one person. The words of the rule are '' unnecessary annoyance to persons." In any event, to justify a conviction, there should have been evidence that more than one person was annoyed by the sounding of the horn.

Anton Bertram, K.C., A.-G. (with him Mahadeva, Acting C.C.), for respondent.-Rule 43 contains a caution or admonition which the driver is bound to comply. Rule 38 enacts that every driver shall comply with the rules thereafter set forth. Rule 43 is one of the rules referred to in rule 38.

There is no difference between "care being taken " and " care shall be taken. " Although the rule is not happily expressed, the meaning is clear when the rule is read along with the other rules- see rule 48.

[Ennis J.-The rule does not provide for a case like the present, where the horn was sounded unnecessarily. The rule only says that

whenever it is necessary to sound the horn, as when overtaking a person, the horn should be Bounded, care being taken not to cause unnecessary alarm, &c. "]

There was practically one continuous blowing of the horn. The present case therefore comes within the rule.

Cur. adv. vult.

June 29, 1914. Ennis J.-

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence for an alleged breach of rule 45 of the rules of February 11, 1909, made under the Motor Car Ordinance, 1908.

Rule 38 provides that every person driving a motor car on any public thoroughfare, street, or road shall comply with the rules thereafter set forth.

Rule 43 runs: "He shall, whenever necessary, by sounding a bell or other instrument, give audible and sufficient warning of the approach or position of the motor car, care being taken that such bell or other instrument is not used so as to cause unnecessary annoyance or alarm to persons and animals on the road."

The facts are that accused passed the complainant on the Colpetty road about 10 o'clock one Sunday morning. He blew a horn, a shrill whistle, and continued to blow it for several seconds at a time, with short intervals, until the car was out of sight. The complainant was annoyed by the unnecessary blowing of the horn. The learned Magistrate held that the horn was being blown unnecessarily, and said, " It is clearly a breach of the by-laws if the horn is kept sounding continuously, instead of being sounded only when used to warn people in the way or turning corners. "

It was urged on appeal that the unnecessary blowing of the horn was no offence under the section. As this involved a difficult question of law, I referred the case for hearing before two Judges.

It will be observed that rule 43 makes the sounding of a bell or other instrument imperative when necessary t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document