Regina v WillansFacts:

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 4th 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 Magistrate’s 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 4th 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.