RIVERS AND RIVULETS NAME OF STREAM NOT IN SCHEDULE TO ORD. 13 OF 1875PARAGRAPHS 10 & 11 OF THE ORDINANCE -DEFINITION OF RIVERS AND RIVULETS.

The Legislature in defining the terms used in Ordinance 13 of 1875, clearly showed their intention not to limit Rivers and Rivulets to those mentioned in the Schedule or which might be added to it by the Governor, by enacting paragraphs 10 and 11 of Art. I of the Ordinance.

The disjunctive "or" in the two paragraphs cannot be construed as meaning "and"

As there was evidence that more than 50 feet of water per minute usually flowed in the stream in question in the case, it was rightly held to be a "river" though its name did not appear in the Schedule.

Before

Ordinance 13 of 1875 has been brought up for review by way of a case stated upon the ground that Rivière Couacaud is not included in Schedule B of the Ordinance and that it has not been added to that Schedule as it could competently have been done by the Governor under Article 22 of the Ordinance and that, at all events, Ruisseau Couacaud called in the information Rivière Couacaud being an affluent of Rivière Terre Rouge cannot be a river but a rivulet in conformity with the d finition given of a rivulet in Article 1 paragraph 11 of Ordinance 13 of 1875 and that as a consequence the reserve line should have been drawn not 50 feet but at 25 feet as provided for by Article 7 of the Ordinance.

It would, no doubt, have been more satisfactory had the Legislature specified which of the streams in Schedule B are rivers and which are rivulets instead of including both under the title Rivers and Rivulets, but we do not think that this defect in the drafting of the Schedule is sufficient to lead us to adopt the theory of the appellants, that the fact of cultivating land, even within the immediate vicinity of a stream, cannot be considered as a contravention if the stream does not appear either as a River or as a Rivulet in the Schedule of the Ordinance, such as it orignally stood or enlarged, as the case may be, by a Proclamation of the Governor.

We believe that the scope of the Ordinance should not be so limited. Its objectwas to protect the borders of streams from the merciless destruction to which they were being daily subjected throughout the Island. A Schedule was prepared contain ing a list of those rivers and rivulets which were known as such and power was given to the Governor, when so advised, to add to that Schedule by inserting therein the name of river or rivulet: but at the any same time and to ensure a more efficient operation of the law, the Legislature when defining the terms used in the Ordinance,

In

presence of this clear enactment we see no reason for construing as was suggested by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the disjunctive or as if it stood for the conjunctive and.

The Magistrate in his case stated and beyond that we cannot travel- declares that he caused the volume of water running in Rivière Couacaud to be measured at the place where the alleged contravention took place and that he was satisfied that the quantity of water that usually flows in it is 50 cubic feet per minute. Under these circumstances we must hold with him that the stream in question is a River within the meaning of Ordinance No. 13 of 1875 this appeal must therefore be, and it is dismissed with costs.

SUPREME COURT

;

A hackney carriage means any carriage, carriole, cart or other vehicle, licensed or used for the conveyance of passengers and which plies for hire on any road or street. (Ordinance 11 of 1881.)

A carriage for which a license duty has been paid, which is let to one individual for the month, and which does not ply for hire on any road or street, may be a licensed carriage or a carriage used for the conveyance of passengers, but is not a hackney carriage. Under Ordinance 21 of 1851, Art. 48, power

is given to the Municipal Council to regulate the number, description and furnishing, etc., of hackney carriages plying for hire within the town of Port Louis and its vicinity.

Article I of the Municipal Regulations proclaimed on the 15th January 1888, making it imperative for every person desirous of placing hackney carriages at the disposal of the Public to sign and lodge a declaration to that effect at the Town Hall, should be construed as applying only to hackney carriages plying for hire and not to a carriage exclusively let by the month to one person.

This is the license which Livery Stable Keepers must take out for carriages, whether they ply for hire on the streets, or are hired out by the day or month.

The appellant has been in the habit, for a long time past, of hiring out his carriage, by monthly contract for a lump sum, to Messrs Blyth Brothers, for their exclusive use. There is no allegation to the effect that he has ever used the carriage for any other purpose, or that he has hired it out to other persons or on other terms.

By information dated the 12th November 1897, the appellant was charged, at the instance of Municipal Inspector Moutia, before the Police and Additional District Magistrate of Port Louis, with having placed a carriage at the disposal of the Public in breach of the Municipal Regulation Chapter 17, Article 1. The Magistrate convicted the appellant upon this informa tion, and ordered him to pay a fine of Rs 20 and the costs of the prosecution- From that conviction Mr Laval has appealed.

This Municipal Regulation was made and proclaimed under Articles 40 and 53 of Ordinance 21 of 1851- Article 40 of the