Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad22
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The Second-class Magistrate convicted the accused of theft and escape from lawful custody.2. The sentence of two months' rigorous imprisonment awarded for teh latter offence must be set aside.3. The custody of the fifth and sixth witnesses--a Talyari and a Totti respectively--from which the prisoner is said have escaped was not a lawful custody, as the offence of theft was not committed in the presence of either of them (Criminal Procedure Code, section 1051), and they are not Police officers.4. The Queen v. M. Sins/p>Order accordingly.1. Section 105 - Any private person may arrest any person who, in his view, eommits a non-bailable and cognizable offence....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad131
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. We are of opinion that Section 22(b) of the Abkari act must be read with Section 21(a). The latter section if it stood alone would no doubt raise a liability to fine in all cases in which a person was found in possession of a quantity of liquor larger than that allowed without a valid permit and would embrace the case of a licensed vendor whose license had expired and who still retained possession of spirituous liquor above the permitted quantity; but if this Section 22 were intended to apply to such cases the provision in Section 21 would not have been enacted, limiting, as it does, the liability of licensed vendors whose license has expired to the case in which they are found in possession of liquor kept for the purposes of sale.2. This provision must, we think, be read as an exception to the general provision in Section 22.3. We are of opinion, therefore, that the Second-class Magistrate's decision is sustainable and that there is no ground for our i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad208
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant delivered to the respondents at the Trichino-poly Fort Station for carriage for hire to Bombay a box containing seven bars of silver valued at Rs. 4,296-10-9. The box was weighed by the Clerk and its weight ascertained to be 128 lb.2. The Clerk inquired and was informed of the nature of the contents, but no increased charge for the safe conveyance of the parcel was demanded or tendered.3. The parcel arrived in due course at Bombay and was again weighed, when its weight was found to be only 78 lb. A telegram was therefore sent to the Station Master at Trichinopoly apprising him of the circumstance, and he was asked to explain the difference. He replied that the correct weight was 128 lb.4. No information respecting the despatch of this telegram nor of the receipt of the reply was given to the Traffic Manager.5. The consignee was informed of the arrival of the parcel at Bombay, and went to the station to obtain it. It was delivered to him with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad23
1. In this case the prisoner has been tried and convicted of criminal breach of trust as a carrier under Section 407 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to 4 years and 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and 500 rupees fine, or, in default, to be rigorously imprisoned for a further period of 15 months. The prisoner was originally tried for this offence in 1869, but the High Court, on the 10th January 1870, ordered a retrial. Prisoner however escaped as he was being brought back from the Cannanore Jail and has only lately been rearrested.2. The evidence for the prosecution tends to show that certain rice was entrusted at Mangalore to prisoner, who was the tindal of a pattimar, for conveyance to one Kesava Naick at Calicut. After prisoner got to sea, instead of taking his pattimar to Calicut, he went off to Goa and there sold the rice.3. In the case, as formerly tried, it was held by the High Court that, assuming that the deviation of prisoner from his course took place beyond a marine l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad26
Kernan and Kindersley, JJ.1. The Head Assistant Magistrate convicted the second, third, and fourth accused under Section 191 of Act XI of 1878, of going armed in contravention of Section 132 of Act XI of 1878, in that, being licensed to possess arms for the destruction of wild animals, they went armed for purposes of sport, and the sixth accused under the same section for being in possession of arms contrary to Section 143 of Act XI of 1878.2. The District Magistrate submits that the second, third, and fourth accused were authorized to drive a jungle for bison, inasmuch as bison are notoriously in the habit of injuring crops, for the protection of which the license to carry arms is granted, and that the conviction of the sixth accused is illegal, inasmuch as the Collector's sanction for the prosecution was not obtained under Section 294 of Act XI of 1878.3. The High Court, concurring with the District Magistrate, quashes the conviction against the second, third and fourth accused, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad133
1. The first and second defendants in this case are brothers living jointly and undivided in the house which is the subject of this suit. There were two other brothers, who separated from the defendants long ago. The minor sons of the second defendant are represented by their mother and guardian the third defendant. In the year 1872 the second defendant hypothecated the house in question to the plaintiff's father. Afterwards the plaintiff's father brought a suit upon the hypothecation against the second defendant alone (No. 458 of 1878); and as the remedy against the person of the second defendant was barred, the plain-tiff's father obtained a decree against the hypothecated house. In execution the house was attached. The first defendant and his brother's wife, the third defendant, on behalf of her minor sons, objected, and their shares were released from attachment, because they were no parties to the decree. The one-sixth share of the second defendant alone was sold in execution of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad28
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The appellant is satisfactorily identified as one of those who took' part in the robbery by the first three witnesses for the prosecution, and their evidence is corroborated by the wound on his finger. It appears further from the evidence that more than five men were concerned in the robbery. As to the sentence, we are inclined to think that it is not good in law, in so far as it directs transportation for three years in default of payment of fine. It appears to us that Section 591 only enacts a general rule to the effect that in the case of offences for which no transportation is specially mentioned as a punishment and which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of 7 years or upwards, it is competent to the Judge to substitute a sentence of transportation as a substantive sentence for that of imprisonment.2. We think, therefore, the sentence requires to be revised, and we direct that the Sessions Judge do pass a revised sentence as to the punishm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad89
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. We cannot see our way to distinguishing this case in principle from Raja Varmah Raja v. Revi Varma Raja I.L.R. 1 Mad. 235 in which the Privy Council held that transfers of religious trusts were void.2. There seems to be no real distinction between the mischief of such a transfer in perpetuity and a transfer for the long period of ninety-six years.3. If the validity of the transfer is not made out, it follows that plaintiff cannot redeem and his suit for redemption must fail.4. We dismiss the appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad214
Innes, J.1. This case is similar to that of Second Appeal 102 of 1880, which was referred by Mr. Justice Muttusami Ayyar and myself for the decision of the Full Bench with reference to the conflicting rulings of this Court and the High Court of Bombay with those of the High Court of Allahabad upon the question of the registration value of instruments which, while reciting a consideration within 100 rupees, may eventually operate to charge the property with a larger sum.2. The case was heard by a Bench of three Judges of whom the present Chief Justice was one.3. The question referred was not, however, considered, as the Court was of opinion 'that the terms ' I bind myself to pay within the 4th May 1876 Rs. 92 with interest at the rate of 9 pies per pagoda per mensem' left it open to the mortgagor to discharge the incumbrance at any time he thought fit before the day named. The deed did not therefore necessarily create an interest in land of the value of 100 rupees.'4. This view, if appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad136
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The argument of the plaintiff in this reference proceeds on the assumption that a patta is necessarily a lease or contains a lease. A patta is not necessarily more than a definite statement, for the protection of both landlord and tenant, of the charges to be paid by the tenant for a particular year or term of years.2. The mere circumstance, therefore, that the parties have arranged without a writing that the one should occupy and the other pay rent is not sufficient to raise the inference that they dispensed with the provision of the law that patta and muchalka should be exchanged.3. The agreement to dispense with patta and muchalka need not be express, but it must appear, as observed by the Subordinate Judge, that the provision of the law was present to the minds of the contracting parties and that they deliberately elected not to act upon it....
Tag this Judgment!