I take it, whatever "protection" is, it can be withdrawn at any time and regranted at any time: I know of no limitation upon the grounds for which it can be. withdrawn.
Such a claim, then, as is now put forward by the Crown Advocate, if accurate, not only suddenly lessens the value of these Crown Leases by' adding an unknown and unforeseen clog on the right of alienation, and mortgage, but it also would give the executive power to override: the express terms of the King's Regulations and the Crown lease. For it is a- claim to add to the restrictions on alienation some such clause as the following: "Or to any British subject from whom protection has been withdrawn": or to-make every transfer or mortgage subject to the approval of His Majesty's Government (see paragraph 5 of the defence), a position which does not appear either the Crown Lease. or in the. Reulations; and it is "suggested: that sacha. withdrawal. of protection, alts.stated: above can and. thus)! go}, words, that a: transferor or. mortgagor may be met with this matter when his transaction is completed fil but- the registration, and when hho attends for that. What his. defence to-an action for specific per formance could be was never closed; and could the transferee be heard ina ease like this to plead it in answer to an action against im for specific performance'?
But assume that a British subject [from whom protection has b withdrawn is ineligible aa Crown fessee,-and this part of the argument can only apply to British subfects, Tam not really called upon to decide that, I am asked to say upon the authority of Phillips v. Byre (LR. 6 Q.B. 1) that such withdrawal has a re-troupe effect, Now that case was decided with reference toa Statute, ant see nothing in the judgment -of the Court of Queen's Bench to leat me to the conclusion that an executive act like withdrawal of tection can have the retrospective effect alleged here. It appears to me that the rights of the parties were fixed by the conveyance and the refusal to register in August 1028, and no withdrawal of protection'in December 1923, can aff them. It is worth noting that, this point was not suggested in any way by the Consul-General: indeed, itreould not be. He seems to correctly stated the position in letter of August 16, 19% Regulations gov lots besides the Land Regulations and the terms of the Crown Lease.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.