382
putting on one side the known reason why this exemption
was introduced, this must be exercised rensonably and
judicially in accordance with the well-known authorities (summariced in Maxwell) and not arbitrarily, or in cuch
A way as to defeat the intention of the law and the
refused to exercise it must be capable of being expressed
in an intelligible reason,
In this case there were apparently two if not more
reasons Ja
which the Attorney General thought were cumul a-
tive, but I should have thought were precisely the reverse
as they are discordant:
If the reason was that no Chinaman is to occupy The
Eyrie as a tenant, that makes the exclusion absolute in
the case of that house:
if the reason was that this Chinaman is not to occupy
the house, then in the first place it was arrived at in
misconception of the facts on which the request for
exception was based; and on those facts it would have
been an unreasonable exercise of the discretion to have
refused it.
The Attorney General says that this practically amounts
to saying that Mr. Ho Tung had a right to occupy the
house, which is contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance.
My answer is that the conditions of the case are such
that it would be unreasonable to refuse me permission to
rent The Eyrie to him, except for other reasons (such as
living as a Chinaman) which were not, but which were
supposed to be, present in this case, aus Khat the riferal of the taûnflîm wa cm,
Fany wita spirit of action 4.
If the question had arisen with regard to any other house,
e.g. if Mr. Ho Tung had desired to rent a house say, next door
to his own, and there was no objection on the part of the
neighbours, it would as it seems to me have been impossible to
refuse the exemption. It cannot be denied that on whatever ground the notion of the Executive Council in the case
is put