BROKEN BOND ALLEGED

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22795, 22 August 1939, Page 14

BROKEN BOND ALLEGED

FERRY SERVICE AT, LYTTELTON SUPREME COURT ACTION A claim for an alleged breach of a bond not to engage in a launch ferry service at Lyttelton was begun, in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr Justice Northcroft. The plaintiff, Lyttelton Ferry Launches, Ltd., claimed that by beginning in the ferry business before September this year, Walter Warren Toy, of Diamond Harbour, the defendant, had broken a bond, made 10 years ago, when plaintiffs had bought his launch, not to engage in the ferry service around the harbour for 10 years. They sought, as penalty. £SOO. It was claimed for the plaintiffs, who were represented by Mr A. F. Wright, with him Mr A. N. Mackay, that the bond extended for 10 years after the plaintiffs completed the purchase of Toy’s launch, on September 4, 1929. It was submitted that the scope of the bond was from September, 1929, to September, 1939. On that subrrfission it was argued that by tendering for the Lyttelton Borough Council’s contract for the service with a subsidy of £275 a year. Toy had broken his bond. _ „ The defence, with Mr E. C. Champion as ‘counsel, denied that there had been any such breach. The contract, it was claimed by the defence, ended in June. 1939. , Evidence called for the plaintiff included claims that the nurchase price of £7OO paid for Toy’s launch, the Tui, was far more than the Tui was worth, the extra amount being paid to buy off Toy’s competition, which was very keen. Details were given of a drop in the takings of the plaintiff company since Toy had begun in active competition on the Diamond Harbour service at the beginning of this month. It was also alleged that Toy, long before August, had run parties of campers and trampers across the harbour. Toy had taken delivery in April this year of the Awhma-Nui, a launch owned formerly by H. Grennell and used in the Port Levy run. Toy had put in his tender to the Borough Council for the Diamond Harbour run in February, the plaintiffs alleged, and it was argued that this tendering for the service was in itself an indirect breach of the bond. It was claimed that since Toy had begun again in the Diamond Harbour service the plaintiffs took only 5 per cent of the number of passengers, and none of the freight. The defence called evidence to show that the bond extended from June, 1929 to June, 1939. and not until September, 1939. Wages payments and a petrol account were put in as evidence that Toy had made no <payments concerned with the Tui after June. 1929. It was further claimed that as the Diamond Harbour service had been begun by Toy in August, that had been outside the scope of the bond. The runs to Port Levy, it was argued, were comnletely outside the terms of the bond in any case, as Port Levy was not considered to be part of the harbour. The case is part heard, and will be continued to-day. An application by the defence for a mon-suit was held over for consideration in relation to the other factors in the case.