THORNTON Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show, cause why the conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioner, Mr. E. Thornton, should not be set aside on the ground that his statement was not recorded, and there is no finding that he was not in the car and there is a clear finding in a subsequent case that he was not in the car.

(2.) As regards the first point we think it is to be regretted, considering that this is a case of first impression as to the interpretation of a rule which is not altogether free from difficulties, that a fuller record of the evidence and the plea of the petitioner was not made. It is now clear from the explanation of the Chief Presidency Magistrate that Mr. Thornton did not seek to impeach Mr. Watson s evidence, and in the absence of the chauffeur merely denied all knowledge of the offence. The only question, therefore, to be considered is the responsibility of the owner under the bye-law 4 read with Rule 20 when the owner is not himself present in the car.

(3.) This is a mixed question of law and fact, and we will first consider the question, of law. It appears that Mr. Thornton was summoned under Rule 20 and not under Rule 4. The indictment was worded "driving his motor car No. 545 so rashly and negligently and at an excessive speed as to endanger human life and property, and thus committing an offence under Rule 20 of Act III of 1903."