TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1920 (11) TMI 2
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is obligation to obtain a duly qualified medical practitioner to attend upon such immigrants. And every employer of Indian immigrants not being free domestic servants, on any estate or place for which estate or place the said Board may have appointed a medical practitioner as aforesaid, shall pay quarterly on or before January 10th, April 10th, July 10th, and October 10th in each year to the Protector of Indian Immigrants" (for whom for this purpose the appellants were substituted by S. 10 of Act No. 17, 1895), "a sum not exceeding 1s. sterling per month for every male statute adult immigrant in the service of such employer." A medical officer was so provided by the appellants and they applied to the respondents, who employed Indians, fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dents' first argument is that the interpretation clause does not apply, because in specifying those in respect of whom payment is to be made, the expression is "every male statute adult immigrant." and not ''every male statute adult Indian immigrant." To this there are two answers. In the first place the nominative of the whole sentence, which is "every employer of Indian immigrants" - he who is directed to pay-makes it clear that the immigrants in respect of whom he is to pay are Indian immigrants. Otherwise there would be the fantastic result that an employer of immigrants to Natal of whatever nationality in the world would have to pay in respect of these persons if he employed as well at least two Indian immigrants, and would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epetition of former legislation. This suggestion in their Lordships' opinion loses all force as an argument, from the very fact that is necessary for its statement - namely, that the Act is an amending as well as a consolidating Act. There is no intrinsic improbability that any of the older sections may not be amended, and it is a novel and, to their Lordships, unheard of idea that an interpretation clause which might easily have seen so expressed as to cover certain sections and not to cover others should be, when expressed in general terms, divided up by a sort of theory of applicando singula singulis, so as not to apply to sections whose context suggests no difficulty in its application. It is also said that there are sections which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n turned to S. 94, which is the penalty section, and is as follows : "Every employer who shall neglect to retain a duly qualified licensed and registered medical practitioner to attend upon the immigrants in his employ, or who shall fail or neglect to supply proper medicine or nourishment for any such immigrant when sick, or who shall neglect to keep such general and medical register book as provided by this Law, or who himself or by any overseer or sirdar employed by him shall wilfully ill-treat any immigrant in his employ, or who shall fail or neglect to supply to any such immigrant any article of food, or to pay any wages to which such immigrant shall be entitled, shall on conviction thereof before any Court forfeit and pay such....