299 



&quot; The case had been heard by a learned Judge, 

 who had exercised his discretion upon it, and the 

 Court would not interfere with his discretion un 

 less they could see that he was wrong. The learned 

 Judge had taken a strong view of the conduct of the 

 defendant, but nevertheless had said that he would 

 have given relief if he could have seen how far 

 protection and compensation could be given. And 

 if this Court differed from him in that view, and 

 could give relief without forfeiture, they would be 

 acting on his own principle in doing so. Certain 

 suggestions had been made with that view, and the 

 Court had to consider the case under all the cir 

 cumstances. . . . He himself (the Master of the 

 Rolls) considered that it was probable the defend 

 ant, with his principles, had intended to destroy 

 the property as a public-house, and that it was 

 not right thus to take property under a covenant 

 to keep it up as a public-house, intending to 

 destroy it as such. He did not, however, think 

 this was enough to deprive him of all relief. . 7 . 

 The defendant could only expect severe terms.&quot; 



Yet, Sir, Mr. &quot; Commissioner &quot; Booth-Clibborn, 

 this high official of the Salvation Army, has the 

 audacity to tell the public that if I had made 

 inquiries I should have found that &quot; in the Court 

 of Appeal the Judge reversed the decision of his 

 predecessor as regards seven eighths of the pro 

 perty, and the General was declared to have acted 



