Present : Bertram C.J. and Schneider A.J.   1920

LEE v. CHANDRAWARNAM.

74-D. C. Hatton, 3 (Special).

Notary authorized to practise in the judicial district of Kandy-Exclusive of Nuwara Eliya-Hatton division from Kandy District-Right of notary to practise in Nuwara Eliya-Hatton division without getting his warrant altered.

A notary was authorized by his warrant in 1907 to practise his profession throughout the (judicial) district of Kandy. In 1909, by Proclamation, the Nuwara Eliya-Hatton division was excluded from the judicial district of Kandy. The Registrar-General was advised by Government that the creation of the new district did not interfere with the vested rights of notaries.

Held, that the notary was not entitled under his warrant to practise in the judicial district of Nuwara Eliya-Hatton.,

BERTRAM C.J.-If the notary wishes to preserve the area of his original practice, his proper course is to apply to the Governor, under section 11 of Notaries Ordinance, to change the area specified in his warrant and to grant him a new warrant.

THE facts appear from the judgment.

Keuneman, for appellant.

September 6, 1920. BERTRAM C.J.-

This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Nuwara Eliya, confirming a refusal of the Secretary of the Court to issue to a notary a certificate under section 25 of the Notaries Ordinance, No.1

of 1907, to the effect that he is duly authorized to practise as a notary within the jurisdiction of the Nuwara Eliya-Hatton District Court.

The notary in question is Mr. Nigel I. Lee, who, besides being a notary, is a proctor belonging to the firm of Messrs. Liesching & Lee of Kandy. Certificates were refused to both Mr. Liesching and Mr. Lee, and the learned District Judge confirmed the refusal in both cases, but it is only in the case of Mr. Lee that an appeal is taken.

The ground for the refusal is that Mr. Lee has not complied with the provisions of section 12 of the Ordinance, which requires a notary before commencing to practise to make and sign a declaration before the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area specified in his warrant, to execute a security bond before such Judge, and to file in the District Court " of such district " an attested copy of his warrant.

Before considering the facts of the case, it will be convenient to examine the general scheme of the Ordinance. Throughout the Ordinance there is a close connection between the notaries, whose practice the Ordinance authorizes, and the various District Courts of the Island. By rule 1 in Schedule B " Every person (other than an advocate or proctor of the Supreme Court) who shall intend to apply for admission as a notary shall give at least three months' notice of his intention to the District Judge of the district and the Government Agent of the province in which he resides and in which' he intends to practise." On obtaining a warrant he must comply with the formalities of section 12 already referred to. Upon compliance with those formalities he is entitled to be enrolled as a notary in a book kept for that purpose in the District Court. (See section 16.) By section 17 (1) a list of all persons authorized to act as notaries within any district must be kept at all times posted at the District Court-house of the district for general information. By section 20 the District Judge, within whose jurisdiction a notary resides, is given jurisdiction to inquire into offences of misconduct of notaries, and to report to the Governor on the subject. Every year a notary must obtain from the Secretary of the District Court a certificate that he is entitled to practise within the jurisdiction of the Court. (See section 25.) The District Court has thus a general supervision over notaries authorized to practise in its district. The warrant issued by the Governor to the notary need not authorize him to practise in any particular Judicial district. By se