Emperor Vs. W.M. Rittoms

bombay motor vehicles rules, 1915, rule, 19(1)-rule of the road-passing of traffic in the same direction-' ordinarily,' interpretation of.;rule 19 (1) of the bombay motor vehicles rules, 1915, provides that a motor vehicle shall ordinarily pass a tramcar on the left or near side whether it be going in the same or contrary direction. the rule covers a tramcar which is stationary. the adverb 'ordinarily' denotes that the rule applies except in a case in which there is some impediment to passing the tramcar on the near side, for example the road may be up or there may be a long line of slow moving traffic which would make it impossible to pass the tramear on the near side within a reasonable time. it is no excuse that there are foot-passengers which makes it difficult for him to pass the tramcar on the near side and that there is plenty of room for him to pass it on the right hand side. - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he floated several companies - he left behind his daughters, s and j - he was suffering from various diseases including some neurological ones - for his treatment, he used to frequently visit united states of america accompanied by his wife and daughter - by reason of a will, he is said to have bequeathed 50% of his property to s and 50% to j in a letter addressed to the 1st respondent, viz., s, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of suspicious circumstances held, it is a fit case where the high court should have appointed a receiver and/or an administrator with suitable directions. s alone had been given exclusive powers not only to execute documents but also induct tenants.john beaumont, c.j.1. in this case the accused applies in revision and asks us to interfere with his conviction under rule 19 (1) of the bombay-motor vehicles rules, 1915. that rule provides :-a motor vehicle shall be driven in accordance with the rules of the road which require a vehicle to keep on the left except when passing horses and other vehicles going in the same direction which should be passed on the right and provided that it should ordinarily pass a tramcar on the left or near side whether it be going in the same or contrary direction.2. in the present case a tramcar normally proceeding in the same direction as the car which the accused was driving was temporarily stationary and people were either getting in or alighting and therefore made it difficult for the accused to pass the car on the near side. although the rule refers to a tramcar whether it be going in the same or in the contrary direction, i think those latter words are not exhaustive and that the rule covers a tramcar which is stationary. the question really is what is the meaning of 'ordinarily.' the accused here says that there were foot-passengers which made it difficult for him to pass the tramcar on the near side and that there was plenty of room for him to pass it on the right hand side. but i do not think that that is enough to take the ease out of the rule. i think the adverb 'ordinarily' denotes that the rule applies except in a case in which there is some impediment to passing the tramcar on the near side ; for example the road may bo up or there may be a long line of slow moving traffic which would make it impossible to pass the tramcar on the near side within a reasonable time. in the present case the accused had only to slow down, or possibly to stop for a moment or two, in order to avoid running over the people approaching the tramcar. there is no charge against him of negligent driving. the only question is whether he has broken the terms of this rule. it is not, i think,.....