THE NEW BRIGHTON HOTEL CASE.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 10954, 2 May 1901, Page 6

THE NEW BRIGHTON HOTEL CASE.

JUDCMENTOF THE SUPREME COURT.

The following is a precis of the judgment of his Honour .\b* Justice Dermiston in the of James v Patterson, which was mi application to 1» relieved of the forfeiture of a lease owing to the license being endorsed under somewhat peculiar circums.ir.o*. The Magistrate dismissed a charge itf'iu.'i*-. the licensee for selling liquor to I'ilk-i than bona fide travelers. An app il was lodged in the Supreme Court and allow*'-!, the c-ise being remitted to the >!agi:-U-afe to convict, which was done, and ait et'.dors.metit made on tho license, which ■.vis the breach of th/ covenant relied upon for forfeiture of the lease. Hi* Honour now gave judgment on the application for relief, and niter setting ou» tin facta, went on to say that the h_see .-lleged that tha act which led to tlie conv;t-». on, though mi illegal one, was done under the bona tide b?li>f that it was legal, and e.'Hrsi'quently committed through ni'mt.ikc without gross negligence. His Honour stated that ho was not altogether t-.fisikd that Jauit's did in fact boueittiv intive at tlie conclusion iilleged by him a"**, to sales to travellers long after tho concliisnm of their journey. He had admitud h» asked his solicitor no question on ! lie subject, and his Honour thought he was cuitetit to have the ('-vision to fall back upon if charged. Nor was his Honour satisfied that a mistake as to law. not being a, mistake as to the legal position of 1 *>»c to lessor, but iui error a.s to the tuttimal law, which led ;. lessee to do art act, the consequence* of which amounted to a forfeiture, cou-.u be a commission or .*. breach of condition by mistake. The ht.H'e must show that but for his vi?\v ol th? law ho would not have committed the illegal act. This, his Honour thought. Jitnifts hid completely failed to do. ' If le- had honestly beuevtd that tbe person h Niippli-d with lipmr in the morning was .t I. in fide ti i\»llt,, ,uid had identified him mi Cm stibtequ- tit iitiitsions as the same l»i..i'i, .iiid lud r-n these later occasions -upput . him wuli bpiorm the belief that in \ in ot the M i>-;«i'rite's decision he w.is I','bi. tntitl-d t<> <erve him, he would t..w M.mmittcd (he act through a bona inl«> klvt* -~s «» tlie law. But ne, in tui. t iok no steps to inform himself if '.< purth-wr \».i_ a bona tide traveller, • : 1 .j. ktd him no question* on any of the • ' i«ifis of >■ ne. It was evident that ii f-.'-iiM-1 no belief on the subject, but *ti ' MUnt to hpII a.:d take th. risk. In '!■ 'i v tint*, he wdiiti have acted as he 'i i i**titn\t.r had bet-in bis belief as to « ' i>«; ruction of Mibseotion 5 of section "'■' <' tV Act of 1895. it was, there- -- . ..n ( '.i*,bte to hold that his breach > hw. « i*. raiucd through a mwtuke ' ' ' ' ■""• Uiligt-nc. would have shown '" tthnh would have entitled him i - - / to wll. but as in hit Honour's '. 'lil urn ,vt on a mistake, tbe ■' 'J h-gigenc. wits not raised. As ' • ■ <i-'-<f"ii »l depreciation of the sell- > *.*,■,- of tl*. pmperty, hi. Honour .(••it th.i les-or had sustained mi mc <> i * s .> nut*.wM risk of two or three •■•,/,., in on the license, and _ c > , < -w-i, -ii? v»lu« of the pn.penv < , •'". t/ pr«< i d.ly diminished by the en- ""' , l l , Mr * x > mmoM would be dij- /. • . rh lA) K>» costs.