Babington, K. C. said that on a w of certiorari the Kings Bench Divisional Court had decided that while. an intoxicating liquor licence had been wrongly granted by the Belfast Recorder io a certain publican in Belfast, it refused-to grant the writ of certiorari on the ground of a delay of five months by a church minister who applied for it.
The refusal was also based on fairness to the publican, who had spent a la am on the premises licensed.
Dr. Johnstone had said in his speech that the judgment of ‹ the Divisional Court was given by way of consideration to the publican, and the one thing that mattered was that the publican must be saved. He h^ also said that the law of the land was invaded. 2 The speech implied that the Divisional Court had been derelict in its duty. It was a most improper speech, and missi presented entirely the basis of the Divisional Cow decision.
Dr. Johnstone's Denial who conducted his submitted that he was not of contempt, as by his speed lih implied only that the discretion-passionate judgment of the vision) Court in favour of the pubjican was a queer interpretation of tHe law. [in what I said," said Dr. John-stue, "I never for a single moment intended to say of any of the Judges tHat he acted improperly, but I admit abite frankly that I cannot follow the reasoning of the Divisional Court tat a licence granted contrary to sthtute is a legal warrant to a publicán to sell liquor. I cannot admit that Jüdges are infallible, and I have a right to criticize their decisions.
tHe we that the law had been P Johnstone denied that he used invaded," and he added that he stood bf his speech in every detail, Lord Justice Be: ving his decision, said that Divisional Court was city right in its decision. A gestion that Judges in some the underhand kind of way were side-w for the benefit of a contempt of
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.