- (1.) The Magistrate and Protector of Laborers appears to us to have proceeded in a manner which is altogether illegal, and to have made a wrong and illegal order. The Act evidently contemplated two entirely distinct proceedings by two distinct officers, in sections 31 and 32; and the fact, that the same officer is both Magistrate and Protector of Laborers does not enable him to merge these two proceedings into one Until the inquiry under section 31 has been completed by the Magistrate; and it has been ascertained by him that the wages of the laborers are more than six months in arrears, the Protector of Laborers is not competent to act under section 32. The inquiry by the Magistrate under section 31 is also one which we think must be conducted in accordance with section 444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; that is to say, as near as may be in accordance with the ordinary procedure of a Magistrate's Court. A definite complaint must be made; the party complained against must be duly summoned; the witnesses sworn and examined; a formal order drawn up and a full record kept of the proceedings. The Magistrate is not at liberty to enter into a correspondence with parties concerned as to the interpretation of the law, but must decide it for himself after hearing the arguments of the parties or their agents.
(2.) Even upon the merits, as far as we can gather from the memoranda sent to us, we think the order was wrong. We think that there was nothing to show that the wages of these laborers bad not been paid for a period of six months. We do not say that to support a conviction under this Act six mouths' full wages must be due, hut clearly there must be some wages due which have been more than six months unpaid. There the coolies had received something on account every month loss than the full amount of their wages; but it seems a strange mode of making up the account to appropriate these payments to the actual month in which they were made. The natural and ordinary course in an account current, is to appropriate payments to the earliest debt due, and unless some special arrangement was shown to have been made to the contrary, that is how the accounts of these laborers ought to have been made up. No such arrangement was shown, and we think, therefore, that the Magistrate's computation was incorrect. Upon these grounds we set aside the order of the Magistrate; but as the sums ordered to be paid to the coolies do not appear to exceed the amount actually due for wages, we do not consider it necessary to order those sums, if paid, to be refunded.;