Laborde v Roberts

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Wooding, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 30 September 1966
• Neutral Citation: TT 1966 CA 105
• Docket Number: No. 401 of 1966
• Court: Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 30 September 1966

Court of Appeal

Wooding, C.J.; Phillips, J.A.; Fraser, J.A.

No. 401 of 1966

Laborde

and

Roberts

Appearances:

E.P. Bruyning for the appellant.

The Respondent did not appear.

Practice and Procedure - Judicial Notice — Definition of “animal” in s. 83 of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 4, No. 17 extended by proclamation — Proclamation not proved nor put in evidence — Whether Court still entitled to take judicial notice of proclamation — Appellant was convicted of failing to keep cows of which he was the owner condined — Charged under s. 83 of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 4, No. 17. By proclamation the definition of “animal” in s. 83 was extended to include cattle — At trial the respondent did not produce the Gazette or other evidence in proof of this — On appeal against conviction the appellant contended that Court could not take judicial notice of the proclamation — Since the extended definition of “animal” became part of the existing law which continues in force, the Court is obliged by s. 5 of the Interpretation Act, No. 2 of 1962, to take judicial notice of it — Appeal dismissed.

Wooding, J.A.

1 The appellant was convicted of failing on October 19, 1964 to keep confined three cows of which he was the owner. On the facts we were satisfied that the magistrate was justified in finding that he had so failed and at the conclusion of the argument we decided accordingly. The question nevertheless remained whether in law the conviction was right.

2 The relevant enactment is s.83 of the Summary 0ffence. Ordinances Ch. 4 No. 17. By subs. (3) thereof it is an offence for an owner to fail to keep his “animal” confined and by subs. (1) “animal” is defined as including “swine”, goats and such other animals as the Governor in Council may from time to time, by proclamation, direct to be included in that term.” By proclamation No. 29 dated December 5, 1956 and published as Government Notice No. 170 for the said years the Governor in Council directed that “horses, cattle mules, asses and sheep be included in the term “animal”, but the respondent did not produce the Gazette or other evidence in proof of this. So the appellant contended that the Court cannot take judicial notice of the proclamation and therefore that it was not shown that he had contravened the enactment. Perhaps we should add that the point was not taken before the magistrate.

3 By the term of subs. (1) the definition of animals as...