1927 Present: Lyall Grant J.

MOORMAN v. SUGATHADASA.

426, 426a?P. C, Colombo, 29,076.

Motor omnibus-Negligence of driver-Presence of owner-Criminal liability of owner-Vehicles Ordinance, No. 4 of 1916, by-law 32.

The owner of a motor omnibus, who was present in the vehicle, is not criminally responsible for the negligence of the driver of the omnibus, unless the owner was in a position effectively to control the action of the driver.

APPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Colombo. The accused, who are respectively the driver and the owner of a motor omnibus, were charged and convicted under section 82 of the Motor By-laws. The driver was charged with having driven his bus in a negligent manner and in a manner likely to cause hurt and with having caused hurt to a person. The owner was charged with allowing the driver to commit the offence charged against him and also with having allowed the bus to be driven in a manner otherwise than reasonable and proper.

On behalf of the owner the point was taken that the by-law, which makes the owner criminally liable for the negligence of the driver, is ultra vires of the powers con