ACTION FOR DAMAGES.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9272, 25 November 1895, Page 3

ACTION FOR DAMAGES.

Aα important law case was heard at Dunedin last week, in which the South* land Frozen Meat Company claimed £50,C00 damages from Nelson Brothers, Limited. Sir R, Stout and Mr O. H. Hall appeared for the plaintiff Company ; Mr H. D. Bell and Mr Hosking for the defendant Compauy. The plaintiffs alleged that by an agreement of the 29th of June, 1891, the plaintiff) agreed to sell and supply to the defendants, and the defendants agreed to take, the whole of the output of frozen meat from the freezing works of the plaintiff* for the period of three years from the Ist of January, 1891. The agreement contained this clause:—(B) " Nelson . Bros., Limited, ■hall not, during the said term of three years, erect, or assist, or be in any way concerned or interested in, the erection or use of freezing works on l&nd or water at the Bluff, orwithin the limits of Southland or Wallace counties, without making epecial arrangements with the Company, nor do anything of a like nature which may in any way interfere with or restrict the output, business, trade, or profits of the Company." The defendants, without having mode any speoial arrangement with the plaintiffs, in the year 1891 ereoted, or assisted and were concerned in the erection of, freezing works at the Bluff, kuown as the Ocean Beach Freezing "Works, and were thenceforth interested during the remainder of the term of three years. By reason of this action the plaintiff* have Buffered greut loss of trade and profit, and their property and connection have beeu greatly depreciated, and their shares have been depreciated, and their output, businesi, trade and profits have been interfered with and restricted. The plaintiffs claim £15.000 for general damages, and £15,000 for jmccial damage arising from the competition j i* the plaintiffs' trade aud business caused j by the defendants' action. The defendants replied in effect that they had no concern or interest whatever, direct or indirect, in the erection of the Ocean' Beach Freezing Works, nor do they have any interest or concern in the use of the said works during the term of three years covered by the agreement. For a further •defence the defendants say that on the,6th of May, 1892, they entered into an agreement with the Hon. J. G. Ward, then owner of the Ocean Beach Freeziug Works, for the purchase of all sheep frozen by the sail J. G. Ward at those works. The plaintiffs were well aware of the existence of this agreement, and never expressed any objection to the same. The defendants deny th<u the entering into this agreement amounted to a breach of the agreement of Jttue 26th, 1891, and the defendants say that, during the period covered by the laatmontioned agreement the defendants had no iuterest or concern whatever in the erection or use of the Ocean Beach or any other freezing works within the limits mentioned in the agreement. The defendants deny that they did any act which interfered wi<h or restricted the output, , business, trade, or profits of the plaintiff Company. After a hearing lasting for four days, the Jndge summed up and directed that the enuring into the output contract by the defendants with Mr Ward was a breach nf contract, anil <hafc the eutering into the agreement of 1093 by defendants to purohaee the Ocean lSeach Freezing Work* was a breach. The jury gave a verdict for plaintiff* for £3500 for each breach. Defendant's counsel mover! for a nonsuit. an<l a now trial on the ground of misdirection and non-direc-tion, and to reduce the damagei. The mo.ion, l.y consent, is to be removed to the Court of Appeal.