FOXTON BUTCHERY DISPUTE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 963, 7 March 1911, Page 3

FOXTON BUTCHERY DISPUTE.

INTERIM INJUNCTION AGAINST REAY. An interim injunction restraining George Reay from carrying on or being concerned or interested in any butchery business within a radius of ten miles of the borough of Foxton was granted to William O’Brien m the Supreme Court Wellington, on Saturday afternoon by his Honour the Chief Justice. The parties were two Foxton butchers. The case was argued on Friday, judgment being reserved until the following day. The claim for the injunction was founded on a clause in the agreement between the parties, in which the defendant promised that he would not “set up, carry on, or be in any way concerned or interested in any butchering business either by himself or in coujuuctiou, company, or partnership with any other person or persons,” and generally, that he would not enter into opposition in any way with the plaintiff within ten miles ot the Borough of Foxton. In giving judgment his Honour said :

What has happened is this. The plaintiff carried on business for some time, and seems to have ceased business for some mouths, but has begun business again. The defendant is managing his father's business, and is driving about a butcher’s cart and delivering meat to householders. In my opinion it is fairly arguable that this is a breach of the agreement made by the defendant. Of course, in granting an interlocutory injunction it is not necessary for the court to hold that the plaintiff is bound to succeed. The case, however, seems to me to be a case in which the plaintiff, if he can prove his facts, has a hope of success. . . . The fact that

considerable injury may be sustained by the defendant if he is prevented by injunction from carrying on his business until the case is heard in May, makes it necessary, I think, that before the plaintiff can issue his interim injunction he must give security, say, for for damages in case the court should at the hearing decide that he was not entitled to have an injunction issued, and that the defendant has been damnified by its issue. On these grounds I grant an interim injunction.

“In my opinion,” added his Honour, “ I cannot look at the words that were originally in the agreement, and have been struck out. I know of no authority to enable me to construe a document by what does not now appear in it any more than I have the right to look at drafts of documents that may have passed between solicitors before the final agreement was come to.”

At the bearing Mr W. H. D. Bell appeared for plaintiff, and Mr T. N. Holmden for defendant.