You are on page 1of 2

Regina v Willans

Facts:

Chivatean has contracted with E-Horsman (proprietor of the


Valdor Sugar Estate) to work as laborer on the said estate for
one year from 25th November 1857
Chivatean duly entered the said service, but after the month
of December 1957 onwards, he has absented himself from the
labour work
Chivatean was apprehended by a warrant and sentenced by
the Magistrate to 2 months hard labour in the House of
Correction at Prince of Wales Island
After the expiration of the said term of imprisonment,
Chivatean still did not and would not return to the said
service, to complete the term for which he had so contracted
to serve
Chivatean was once again apprehended and brought upon Mr.
Willans, at that time was Magistrate of Police at Province
Wellesley, who, upon examining the nature of the complaint
refused to adjudicate on the said complaints on the ground
that the jurisdiction given by the Parliament (Statute 4 th Geo
IV C.34) had been exhausted by the previous conviction and
punishment. Chivatean cannot be put on a trial for the second
time on the same complaint from the same contract and was
subsequently discharged. He continued to be absent. This rule
is called the Rule Nisi.

Issue:

The question arose in this case is whether the Magistrates


refusal to adjudicate was well founded. Later in the case, it
was discussed on to what extent did the English statute law
applicable in in England in 1826 apply in Penang

Ratio Decidendi:

To determine this, the Court assessed whether the statute


under which the defendant (Chivatean) was called upon to act
is a part of the law of the Settlement (Penang).
The general rule of law determining what is the law of the
territory is that if the new acquisition be an uninhabited
country found out by British subjects and occupied, the law of
England, so far as it is applicable becomes on the foundation
of the settlement, the law of the land. But that if it be an
inhabited country obtained by conquest or cession, the law in
existence at the time of the acquisition, continues in force,
until changed by the new sovereign. However, this settlement
did not fall exactly under either branch of the aforesaid rule- it

was neither a colony of British, nor was it an inhabited country


when ceded (4 Malay families were found during the
acquisition of the land)
To further decide on this, Maxwell R had laid down the criteria
to determine the application of the English statute (Statute 4 th
Geo IV C.34) in Penang which provided for the punishment of
labourers for willful breaches of their contract with their
employees.
No injustice or inconvenience arise from enforcing the
Act
The way by which the offence is remedied is not peculiar
to England
The stringent provisions of the Act appears to retain the
welfare of the Settlement.
It was concluded that the law applied in Penang

Held:

The Magistrate was right by declining to adjudicate upon the


caseon the alleged ground. It is said it was not the intention of
the legislature that a workman should be put into prison more
than once for not fulfilling his contract. The general spirit of
the English law is not to permit a man from being punished
over and over again on what substantially is the same matter.

You might also like