PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Is b b k
C.O.
Reference :-
- 882
2
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
44
APPENDIX No. 8.
Amended Complaint.
Amended complaint in "Mont Choisy
case:
"1. Being kept at work for a period exceeding that fixed by law.
"2. The price of the tools given to them to work with on the estate is retained from their wages.
estate.
3. That 1 dollar was cut off from their wages to pay for a pump erected on the
"4. That when they do not finish the task assigned to them for a day, a portion of their wages for that day is cut off.”
APPENDIX No. 4.
Judgment of Court of Petty Sessions.
Pamplemousses, Mauritius.
At a Court of Petty Sessions, held in virtue of an order of his Excellency the Governor,
Before:
J. A. Robertson, Senior District Magistrate.
Oscar d'Emmerez de Charmoy, Stipendiary Magistrate. Edward 8. Messiter, Stipendiary Magistrate.
To inquire into certain charges preferred by certain Indian labourers, to wit, viz.: Seebocus Goorah, Sookun Bany, and others on "Mont Choisy" Estate, in all sixty- four, against their employer, Mr. Henri Poulin, of "Mont Choisy" Estate, in the said District of Pamplemousses, the said Court having assembled on the 10th October now last past, proceeded to investigate the said complainants' several charges, when
The Substitute Procureur and Advocate-General said that he appeared as Counsel for the said Indian complainants and also by direction of His Excellency the Governor to watch the proceedings.
Mr. Barrister Vaudagne also appeared on behalf of the complainants.
Mr. Henri Poulin conducted the defence.
The learned Substitute Procureur-General then informed the Court that he had decided to narrow the issues between the parties and reduce the counts against defen- dant to five in number, instead of eight, as they generally stood, and that the following counts now formed the charge against the defendant:--
First count:
"That you kept complainants at work for a period of time exceeding that fixed by law."
Fifth count, now second:
"That the price of the tools given to them to work with on the estate is retained from their wages."
Sixth count, now third:
"That 1 dollar was cut from their wages to pay for a pump erected on the estate." Seventh count, now fourth:
"That when they do not finish the task assigned to them for a day a portion of their wages for that day is cut off."
Eighth count:-
"The complainanta claim wages due to them for the period and sums set opposite to their names on the complaint."
To these several charges the defendant pleads not guilty.
In his opening address to the Court, the learned Counsel for the complainants intimated that the complaint was a general and cumulative one as regards several of the counts, and separate as regards the individual interests of the complainants in the different sums of money they allege have been unlawfully retained from their wages. Such unlawful retentions being by them classed under the following heads, viz. :-
1. For tools supplied to them to perform the defendant's work on the estate.
2. For sums illegally retained from their wages under the pretence that they had not performed their task.
45
3. For a sum of 2 rupees illegally deducted from their wages for a pump; and 4. They claim wages due to them individually, for periods varying from one to two months and some odd days,
The learned Counsel further observed that, as far as posible, each complainant would be a witness for the others.
Before proceeding into the merits, it may be as well to mention that a motion was made by the learned Counsel for the complainants, on behalf of thirty-four of them, to the effect that the contract of engagement of these thirty-four Indians with Mr. Poulin, the defendant, not having been signed by the Stipendiary Magistrate, as required by the Statute, was null and void as regards these thirty-four Indians.
The defendant objected to such a motion, as being, at this stage of the proceed. ings, inconsistent and at variance with the proceedings taken in the name of these men against him.
On this motion, the majority of the Court held that the contract having been carried into, by both complainants and defendant, so far in good faith, and the Stipendiary Magistrate having signed the tickets and certificates of engagement, that the mere omission of his signature was not sufficient to set it aside; and for these reasons, the Chairman dissenting, the Court decided against the motion made by complainants' Counsel, who, thereupon, intimated his intention to appeal from such decision.
Subsequently, the complainants' Counsel moved the Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari, removing the record and this decision into the Supreme Court. In showing cause the Magistrates stated that they had no intention of opposing the removal of the record, and gave in their reasons, as did also the dissenting Magistrate, and the Supreme Court, by a judgment delivered on the 6th November instant, sustained the motion, set aside the decision of the Petty Sessions, and cancelled the written contract of thirty-four of the complainants whose contract had not been signed by the Magistrate; these men are, therefore, only now before the Court as com- plainants for the several alleged illegal retentions from their pay and for their wages.
It be as well also to notice here that, when it was proposed to call and hear witnesses who had been summoned by the complainants' Counsel on their behalf, the defendant objected to the Honourable the Protector of Immigrants being heard, for the following reasons:-
may
"1. That the documents it is proposed to produce, and purporting to be state- ments made by him (defendant) to the Protector, are not signed by him.
"2. Because no communication has been made to the Magistrate of them. "3. That they are not evidence in the case."
The Court at once overruled these objections, on the general principle that in law in civil cases statements made by a party, extra-judicially, to his own prejudico, may be proved against him. In cstimating the weight of such admissions two points require attention: 1st, the medium through which the supposed admission comes; 2ndly, the motives which may have induced the party to make it. principle on which admissions are received is founded chiefly on the reasonable "Again, the presumption in favour of the truth of a statement when it is against the interest of the person who makes it." Now, the medium through whom this admission comes to us, not only having an official character well known to the defendant, but possesses also a quasi-judicial position.
The motive that induced defendant to make such statements to that officer was, we suppose, the wish to afford the Protector every possible information in his inquiry, the reasonable presumption, therefore, is that such statements are true.
It is of little or no importance that such statements were not signed by the defendant, as they were read over to him, and corrected under his dictation.
It is not the practice to communicate such documents beforehand to the Magistrate.
The Court is, therefore, of opinion that they are admissible in the case. Having thus disposed of these incidents, we now turn to the main question before the Court.
It is obvious that a complaint so constituted, and embracing, as it does, so many different findings, is an absolute departure from the principles of law governing complaints before ordinary Courts of Justice, and having been thus brought before Court constituted under an exceptional law, some latitude must be allowed both to the complainants, defendants, and the Court in dealing with the different charges therein contained.
The first count on which we are called upon to adjudicate, runs thus:--
[184]
N