The only point urged in this case is that the manager of the theatre who did not drive the bus through the prohibited streets should not have been convicted but that the man who actully drove the bus should have been convicted as Sect. 76 (Act III of 1888) contemplates only the conviction of the person who actually contravenes the conditions in the license. I am unable to accept this contention. In this case the license was given for going in a bus with music for the purpose of distributing hand-bills and that license was given only for one day between 6 A. M. and 6 P. M.
The license was given to the petitioner. The mere fact that heasked his servent to drive the bus would not in any way exonerate him from the conditions of the license. It is not necessary that he should actually go in the bus himself in order to make him liable under Sect. 76. When the license obtained is for a particular purpose and the currency of the license is only for a short time, if the person who obtains license does not himself drive the bus but makes his servant go through prohibited streets, he is as much liable as the man who drives the bus because the servant is only the hand by which the act is done. In this view of Sect. 76 I think the conviction of the petitioner is right. I dismiss the petition.
K.V.SPetition dismissed.