Chennai Court January 1891 Judgments
Queen-empress Vs. Thandavarayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1891
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad364
1. The petitioner has been found guilty of abetting a public nuisance (Sections 290 and 109 of the Penal Code) in that he was the lessee of a house, which he permitted to be used as a common gaming house; whereby nuisance, danger, and annoyance have been caused to the residents in the neighbourhood.2. The mere act of gambling in a private house is not per se a public nuisance (see Weir, page 146), but that is not the offence charged or found. The evidence for the prosecution, which both the lower Courts considered reliable, went to show that the neighbours have been greatly annoyed by the noise which the gamblers frequenting petitioner's house make, that the gamblers throw the ends of cheroots upon the houses, quarrel and fight in the public street, and that people are afraid to go out at night or to pass the house for fear of being assaulted.3. Although there is no evidence, that the petitioner did, as the Sub-Magistrate states, engage the house for the purpose of letting it out as a ...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimha Sastrial Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Thr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ176
1. The Decree of the Lower Appellate Court does not give plaintiff any declaration with regard to the water. We think that plaintiff ought to have a decree, that he is entitled to the reasonable use of the water in the channel, provided he does not interfere with the right of Government, as a reparian proprietor lower down. We do not think we ought to declare his right is limited to the irrigation of a single field, as decreed by the District Judge. But he will not be at liberty to appreciably diminish the customary supply of water to any of the riparian proprietors lower down the stream.2. The decree will be amended accordingly.3. As appellant and respondent each claimed more than he was entitled to, we direct that each bear his own costs in the 2nd appeal....
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. R. Fischer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1891
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ174
1. The suit is of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, although the Distict Munsiff acting under Section 23 of Act IX of 1887, very rightly directed that the plaint should be presented to the court, having jurisdiction to determine a question of title, which arose in the suit. The defendant has had the benefit of an appeal upon the facts. But the High Court is precluded by the terms of Section 586, C.P. C, from entertaining a second appeal.2. The second appeal must be dismissed with costs.NOTE--In S. A, No. 233 of 1890, the Madras High Court held that where a rent suit was filed for less than Rs. 500 (before the Government notification authorising small Cause Courts to try rent suits) in a Munsiifs Court as a regular suit, but before the suit was decided in the original court and in the first Appel late Court, the notification was issued no second appeal would lie, to the High Court, the suit being of a Small Cause nature when the second appeal was presented....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›