:
189
17. Clause 11 introduces a new provision, based on section 2 of the Dogs Act, 1871, 34 and 35 Viet. e. 56. The new section will give power to a magistrate to order that a dangerous dog shall either be kept under proper control or be destroyed.
18. Clause 12 increases the penalty under section 19 of the principal Ordinance from $100 er 14 days with- out hard labour to $250 or three months with or without hard labour. The section deals with various offences relating to the broaching of cargo, etc.
19. Clause 13 amends section 20 of the principal Ordinance so as to give power to award imprisonment with or without hard labour,
20. Clause 14 raises the penalty under section 21 of the principal Ordinance to $250 or three months impri- sonment with or without hard labour. The offences concerned include wilful damage to bridges and em- bankments.
21. Clause 15 raises the penalty for possession of offensive weapons with intent to use the same for an unlawful purpose to $250 or three months imprison- ment with or without hard labour.
22. Clause 16 raises the penalty for disorderly con- duct to the same maximum.
23. Clause 17 raises the penalty for unlawful posses- sion to $250 or three months imprisonment with or without hard labour.
24. Clause 19 makes the occupier of any premises on or from which any offence under section 3 (1) or section 13 of the principal Ordinance is committed liable to the same penalty as the actual offender. The offences chiefly concerned are the throwing of rubbish and other offensive matter from houses into the public street, and the making of noises at night. In such cases it is prac- tically impossible to discover the actual offender unless the occupier is prepared to give him up. On the other hand, it is probably easy in most cases for the occupier to ascertain who was the actual culprit, and in many cases the culprit is under the control of the occupier. It seems therefore to be a case in which the Occupier may fairly be made liable.
25. Clause 20 makes contractors liable for the acts of their employees in the three following cases -----
(a) allowing materials to fall from buildings to the
danger of the public;
(b) opening trenches in the street without authority,
or failing to fence and light such trenches; (e) depositing material on Crown land without a
permit.
As regards (1) above, it is possible in nearly all cases for the contractor to make such provision by way of screens, etc., as to obviate the possibility of materials falling on to the public street. As regards the first part of (), it is most unlikely that the workmen would open a roadway except under the express instructions of the contractor employing him. As regards (e) it is the duty of the contractor to make arrangements for the disposal of building rubbish, etc., and if he fails to do so and permits his coolies to dispose of it as they think lit, he cannot well complain if he is held responsible. In all these cases the commission of the offence almost certainly involves some neglect on the part of the con- tractor. The only exception is the case of failing to light a trench or other obstruction in the street. Hold- ing the contractor criminally liable here may perhaps be justified by the danger to the public,
Page 10Page 11