Dispaupering a party. moratchy, 17 Dec. 1834; Morg. D. 28: 1277, D. C. Wadimoratchy, 23 Feb. 1837; Morg. D. 136.) Yet, if the proctor reports that the defendant has not a good primá facie defence, and if the defendant files an affidavit of want of property, and credit is given to such an affidavit, it has been held better that the case should be tried out; and without prejudice to the case of the plaintiff, defendants have been allowed to file their documents as paupers, subject to the final decree of the District Court treating the case as a whole. (1149, D. C. Wadimoratchy, 3 May, 1837; Morg. D. 147-8.) The practice of dispaupering a party in the Colombo Court is as follows: The applicant files an application and affidavit setting forth that the pauper has property above the value of five pounds, and thereupon moves that a day may be fixed to adduce evidence to that effect; and notice thereof is given to the pauper; and on the day fixed evidence is heard, and an order is made, such as the circumstances of the case require. But it must be made to appear that the pauper is worth five pounds; and the mere possession of property, as, for example, the possession of a house and garden, is not sufficient to dispauper him, unless that the property is worth five pounds. This practice it is also believed is adopted in other courts, and should be followed in all. (15636, D. C. Caltura, 21 Sept. 1852: 12506, D. C. Colombo, 6 Aug. 1850.) stage. Further, a party is not precluded from moving to May be at any dispauper at any stage of the case; and if evidence has been fully taken by the District Court, the Supreme Court will not interfere. The question must be left to the discretion of the District Judge. (13759, D. C. Chilaw, 26 Jan. 1856; Lor. R. 15.) costs. The Supreme Court does not often interfere with the Appeal as to judgment of the court below as to costs, except in manifest cases of hardship. (16941, D. C. Galle, 3 July, 1863.) to costs. It is the established practice in Ceylon to consider Execution as costs as a joint and several debt, which may be levied from either of the parties, at the creditor's option; the debtors being left to their remedy against each other for reimbursement of the shares overpaid. (1676, D. C. Amblangodde, 28 Dec. 1837; Morg. D. 203.) When a pauper obtains judgment, he may take a copy of it, and sue out execution, in blank. A sum, sufficient to cover the stamps required, had he not sued as a pauper, may be added to the execution. The first amount levied is applied to the purchase of such stamps, to be cancelled by crossing, &c. Where a proctor is employed, his costs are paid first; next, stamps are purchased, and the surplus is paid to the party, if a plaintiff. If both parties are paupers, and the winner undertakes to point out property of the other, execution will issue on blank against property; but not against the person, unless the party liable in execution is secreting his property. (Sup. R. No. 6, 4 Aug. 1834, p. 110.) CHAPTER XIII. DISTRICT COURTS. CRIMINAL JURISDICTION. Criminal EACH of the District Courts is a Court of Criminal Jurisdiction. Every offence for which no express punishment has been provided by statute,* and which is not usually, at the time of the commission of the offence, punished by death, transportation, or banishment, or by any higher punishment than District Courts are, by the Ord. No. 5 of 1846, or any subsequent statute, empowered to impose, is cognizable by the District Court of the district in which the offence has been committed, wholly or in part, or by any District Court to which the trial of the offence has been lawfully transferred. By the ordinance mentioned, a District Court can punish a person, for any offence, by imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any period not exceeding twelve months, and by fine or forfeiture not exceeding twenty pounds; or by imprisonment, as before, and by * I. e. Proclamation, Regulation, Ordinance, or Act of Parliament. corporal punishment not exceeding fifty lashes, or by any one of the above-mentioned punishments. But in no case can the District Court (unless authorized by statute subsequent to the above) impose, for the same offence, the three punishments of fine, imprisonment, and corporal punishment. Every offence and every act of commission or omission made punishable by statute by no higher punishment than such imprisonment, and such corporal punishment as above mentioned, or by such imprisonment and fine, penalty, mulct, or forfeiture, not exceeding twenty pounds, is within the jurisdiction of the District Court of the district in which it was committed, wholly or in part, or of any district to which the trial of the offence has been transferred. (No. 5 of 1846, § 1; and see Charter, § 25.) In determining the question of jurisdiction, it must be observed that the Queen's Advocate (and of course any private prosecutor) has. no right, in prosecuting a case in the District Court, to restrict his libel or accusation to an arbitrary punishment, and to reduce the charge so as to render the offence punishable only as a minor offence, and thus to prosecute in the District Court. The Lord Advocate of Scotland is master of his instance, and can restrict the punishment so that, in a capital offence, the court can pass sentence for transportation. (Hume's Com. on Crimes, ii. p. 131.) But no such practice ever prevailed in Ceylon; the Q. A. only moves for Revenue offences. the prisoner to be brought up to receive his sentence: and, in cases where no express punishment is provided, the discretionary power of punishment must not be interfered with or restricted by any motion of the Q. A. to have such punishment only passed on the prisoner as he deems proper in the particular case. And if he cannot exercise this power directly, by restricting his libel or by special motion in the Supreme Court, he clearly cannot do so indirectly by prosecuting only in the inferior courts. (1308, Batticaloa, 7 Sept. 1855: R. v. Capper, 11 Jan. 1864.) If, on appeal, it is determined that the District Court has no jurisdiction, the S. C. will quash the proceedings and discharge the prisoner, who is then liable to be indicted before the Supreme Court. Thus an accused party may pass through two trials; and the best for him, in order to save anxiety and expense, would not be to wait for an appeal, but to apply, in the first instance, for a prohibition. The District Court has, also, a general power to try all offences whatsoever against the revenue, committed wholly or in part within its district: so that it may, in revenue cases, fine over twenty pounds, imprison over one year, and inflict more than fifty lashes, if the revenue law permits or orders such higher punishment. (Ord. 12 of 1843, § 2* 1959, D. C. Chilaw, 13 May, 1852.) *The proviso, in 12 of 1843, ? 2, relating to revenue offences, is not repealed or altered by 5 of 1846, 21. |