THE ACTION AGAINST "GENERAL" BOOTH, OF THE SALVATION ARMY.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3779, 25 August 1883, Page 4

THE ACTION AGAINST "GENERAL" BOOTH, OF THE SALVATION ARMY.

On July G Mr Justice Stephen delivered judgment in the case in Avhich Messrs Ebbetts seek to recover from "General' Booth, of tho Salvation Army, possession of premises, including the Grecian Theatre and the Eagle Tavern, on the ground of forfeiture by reason of alleged breaches of the covenants of a lease of the premises assigned by tho plaintiffs to the defendant. Tho breaches avci-o said to havo arisen from annoyance and injury caused to the other tenants on tho estate by the proceedings of the Salvation Army outside and inside their quarters, and from the fact that the defendant, instead of keeping up the Eagle Tavern as a public-house, had used it as a coffee palace, thereby risking the loss of the excise licence. The case having on previous days been beard by Mr Justice Stephen without a jury, his lordship now gave his decision. The learned judge, referring to tho affidavit of tho defendant put before Mr Justice Kay when an application Avas made for an interlocutory injunction against him, said that after deliberate consideration of the terms of that document in relation to the facts of the case, it appeared to him to be disingenuous, misleading, and framed in such a Avay as to lead to a false impression in the court, which refused the injunction in the belief that the defendant had abandoned his intention of keeping up the tavern as a temperance house. His lordship Avas clearly of opinion that both covenants had been broken, and he had considered Avhether it was a case for relief under tho Conveyancing Act, 1881. It Avould be a pity that Mr Booth should lose the £20,000 he had laid out on the place, and he had accordingly considered the matter most anxiously, but ho could not see that this Avas a case for such relief. The defendant had been Avrong from first to last. He took the lease, intending from tho first to evade one of its terms. He solemnly engaged to keep tho Eagle Tavern as a public-house, ancl he must have known what the substantial and fair meaning of those words Avas. He hacl tried to eA-adehis obligation by an unsuccessful legal quibble. It Avas not honest. If a man's conscience did not allow him to fvllfil his covenant substantially in tho spirit as Avell as in the letter, he ought not to enter into it. The defendant had tried to evade his contract on the chance that the law might bo on his side. He (the learned judge) thought the law was not on his side, and he saAV no reason Avhy he should interfere Avith the consequences. Ho Avas sorry that the defondant, or any ono else, Avho had spent £20,000 for a lawful object should lose it, and if he saAV any Avay to relievo him by any terms which Avould put the plaintiffs in precisely tho same position as they wore iv before he should be disposed to clo so, notwithstanding his opinion of the defendant's conduct, but no such Avay had been suggested, and ho could no t think of any. His lordship, therefore, gave judgment for the plaintiffs for possession, but mcaiiAvhilc stayed execution for a Aveek to allow the other side an opportunity for appealing, which it was intimated that the defendant intended to clo.