— xxxviu— 



The Chief Justice : — This is an action of trespass. The 

 petition contains two counts — one for expelling the plaintiff from 

 his land and preventing him from reaping the growing crop ; the 

 second, for breaking and entering into his dwelling house and 

 expelling him from it, whereby he was prevented from carrying 

 on his business, and was compelled to procure another dwelling. 

 The first three pleas deny the trespass and the possession. The 

 fourth alleges that the plaintiff, not being a cultivator or resident 

 tenant holding by prescription, was, by a duly served notice, in- 

 formed that the land in question had been assessed by Government 

 from the 1st of January, 1870, at 97 cents per annum, and was 

 therein also called upon by the Collector to. take out proper title 

 for the land, within a month from the date of the service of the 

 notice, and that in default he would be ejected. The plea then 

 avers that the plaintiff would neither comply with the terms of the 

 notice, nor remove from the land within a month ; and that the 

 defendants, by the order of the Collector, and in the exercise of 

 the powers given to him by Act 16 of 1839, assisted him in ejecting 

 the plaintiff, which are the trespasses, &c. 



The Act referred to authorises the Collector, by section 3, to 

 eject persons in occupation of land otherwise than under a grant 

 or title from Government, if they refuse to " engage for or to 

 remove from " it within a month from the date on which they are 

 called upon by him to enter into such engagement or to remove. 

 But the last section of the Act excepts from its provisions " such 

 "cultivators and resident tenants of Malacca as hold their lands by 

 " prescription, subject only to a payment of one-tenth part of the 

 " produce thereof, whether such payment be made in kind " or in 

 money. 



The trespass was clearly proved ; indeed, it was in substance ad- 

 mitted. It was proved or admitted that a notice in the terms stated 

 in the fourth plea, signed by the Lieut. -Governor, had been served on 

 the petitioner a month before, and that by that officer's orders, the 

 defendant Mitchell, a Clerk in the Land Office, accompanied by 

 another Clerk of the same Office, went in company with the other 

 defendant, Endaln, who is a Police Duffadar, three other Police- 

 men, and an European Inspector, to the house of the plaintiff at 

 about 11 a. M. on the 21th December. The Policemen were armed 

 with swords, and one of the Europeans w r ith a double-barrelled gun. 

 The plaintiff was absent ; but they turned his wife and family out 

 of the house, and the furniture was removed from it by their orders. 

 The garden and paddy land were also taken possession of ; they 

 were afterwards sold by auction by Mitchell ; and the plaintiff 



