Eales vs Municipal Commissioners for the City of Madras

In answer to the question referred by the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, we are of opinion that a sufficient notice within the meaning of

Section 433 of Act I of 1884 has been given.

Two objections have been taken to the notice which is said to be conveyed by two letters marked G and J, the first objection being that the

cause of action was not explicitly stated and the second that the abode of the plaintiff was not sufficiently described. With regard to the first

objection, we have felt no doubt that it was not maintainable for the cause of action is stated with sufficient clearness in the second of the two

letters.

The other objection presents more difficulty, for the only address given in Mr. Eales'' letter is ""Madras,"" and it is only by reading his letter with

the letter of his solicitors that any complete notice stating the plaintiff''s abode is made out.

The latter letter refers to Mr. Eales'' letter, and we think that they must be read together. It was argued that, inasmuch as the Act is a local one,

and it is required that the abode of the intending plaintiff should be given, it must be intended that something more than ""Madras"" should be

mentioned, and it was urged that there was a distinction between local and general Acts in this matter. For this supposed distinction, we find no

authority. The clear intention of the Legislature was to give the defendants notice of the threatened action and afford them an opportunity of making

amends. If, under the circumstances, the notice sufficiently intimates to the defendants the place where the plaintiff is to be found, the intention of

the Act is so far fulfilled. Adopting the language of Pollock, C.B., we must import a little common sense into notices of this kind--Jones v. Nicholls

13 M. & W. 363. We may also refer to the observations of the Judges in Osborn v. Gough 3 B. & P. 550 which is a strong case, because the

defendant was a Magistrate, and no address beyond ""Birmingham"" was given. Having regard to the two objections raised, we are of opinion that

the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court was right in his ruling.