COURT OF APPEAL.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 192, 8 May 1908, Page 5

COURT OF APPEAL.

, SALE -OF A MEDICAL PRACTICE. ; VALIDITY • OF THE AGREEMENT. . The . sittings of the. Court of Appeal wero . roSumcid.-yesterday niorning .when-,argument ■was'heard in tho caso between Walter William Moore; formerly of-Richmond, but now of Jsel-son (appellant), and Robert. James Or-ford.-of Richmond (respondent)..- • , . Mr. Skerratt,. K.C. (with him Mr. Ostler), appeared on behalf of-tho . appellant, and Mr. for the. respondent.'.." , Tho parties to the action are medical practitioners. . On May 9, 1905, Dr. Moore sold to Dr. Orford'. the goodwill of his. practice at Richmond-in. tho Nelson district.. Tho . , bond':stated -"'that-". Dr. Mooro ■ was ..firmly ■ . '/ •. bound to. Dr. .Orford in tho sum. of £100 for • " 'vV. 'every v month '. or''part!. thereof during which ■!•■ Dr. ,Orford,,his executors, etc.; should carry on.: thoVbusiness of- medical practitioner "at : Richmond, Wakefield.,'- or 1 Brigh'twator, or , Tfithin': a v radius, of eight - miles from ..Richmond,to , bo paid to -.Dr. .Orford,' his t executors,, etc., for which payment- Dr. Moore'/bouhfl'his.'h'eirsji'ctc. ' Tho conditions in: the'bonc"l--werc (l) .that Dr. Mooro .should . nofc-direcfcly'or, indirectly and .'.eithcr ;alone or/.inpaifnership'carry on . tho busrness of a .■ medical^ 'practitionerwithin*..tho radius' ferred to while ]Dr.' Orford was in business •>' M' a ' praotitiorier ,in , ..Tadi-us' without: Dr. Orlord's consent in. writing; (2) 'that he should ■..■■not oneourage 'any • opposition to Dr. Orford's practice; .h<) -should . not' professionally attend to 1 aiiy "of Dr. Orford-3 patiohts; and (4) /that ■ ; ho , should not solicit any such persons to , . (lisoontmuo his or her dealings < with Dr. Orford. :On tho. grounds that Dr. ... Mooro had-during;.the months -of July,. August; .September, and October, .1907, in breach, of .the conditions of tho bond sot . tad . carried ,on ; practice iin Collingn'ood' Street, ' Nelson,-:.; within a radius- of - eight piilcs, from Richmond, and had also entered into partnership as.from July 1; 1907;' with .P- Stanley, Arthur Lucas, and -F. ,A. I B. Bett, medical practitioners, Nelson, and ' '-■('■ on practice ;'. in: partnership - withthem during tho period mentioned. Dr; , Orfordbrought a claim against Dr. Moore V, in the. Supreme •' Court for £400 '' damages .' . being-;£loo'for'cacli of the . months in ques:.tl6n.; - As ;'a , defonco t'b' the' action, \it was,: i intor .alia,'pleaded on behalf of Dr.'.Moore . that the i word Richmond had been substi- ; , tuted in the deed for Brightwater sinco its; execution; that the bond was invalid (a) by reason ,of its form , and contents and of 1 the 'uncertainty of. the area within ;which "it purported to •;restrain ; A.him..from;: practising .. and'.; (h)as' 'an' ~ unroasonablo''..restraint or . ,trWe; »thiit;<tho -prohibited;- area ;upon .!thd' ; true aiw'-reasonable construction-, of-thfe bond- . d-id ;.not' include' the'. , city, of»Nelsoii;- 1 ? thatif -, tho .bond'was; a-valid'one and did in point y of fact include tho Sity of NelMh.. : ,thp sW of £100 per:. month'" -mentioned ■ .thbreiii,. was 1 :• o;_penaltj;' ; arid /not' liquidated-..damages; tllat' '-...■ -had ; not/practised-. during .October, .ivnd , , ~ t)iat the plaintiff.had buffered no from v.;: '■. any' isuch^ijiirrying;:on— of-.. b'iisintss;' ; as^Dr.. Mooro niay'. havo donc. yMr. Justice . Cooper i V held that nth'e.'-dlfcratiohs .to thevbond ■".wi'ro ■ reader prior) to tho.'. execution; that.'d's-: to -the' , within a-radius 1 of eight , miles from Ricli- . mond; ,that it was impossible to hold that • ! the restriction/was. unreasonable,-and tn&t : ' the .. amount : stated , in- tho bond was. liq'ui- , dated damages,'and not a penalty, and must be.- taken be a genuino ;pre-est-imato of Dr.-,.Oxford's probablo or possible interest ih-.the; due > performance of the ' prinoipal v .. obligati6n... ; . Judgment. was. therefore ,;r.-- , n < . for Orford for '£300 with costs on the/middle ■.spale.T "His Honour, further held, that if tho' amount'-.of'the : s bond was "a penalty, :then ■ ho assessed- the damages at £50. ..-'The' pro- , \. sent appeal .on the-part of, Dr. Mooro: Was . that judgment should only bo entered up for the .£50,: and for the £300. ,/ ■ .: . ; Mr.. Skerl-ott,-in. opening, tho baso for :.i ( ho l V... appellant, ; emphasised /the peculiar , character ' ' of.''tho. bond.;,- Ho■ submitted, .irii-CT,alia, : that; '■ , it; of '£100' . ' for.,every month during. which' Dr. Moore .V should ,carry- on business iff-.the prohibited , i area,-_h.ut wis a: bond to-pay tho amount in -.-■,- question for. every..month during which' Dr. Orford. himself should'practice in., the "prohibited afrea.' ' ' Mr; Justice,- Edwards: (There must boj a ■ misprint in. tho copy of. the bond. ' l. . 1 • .Mr.. Skorrett explained that that was not the .case. ■ ■ : ... :: '• ■' ■ 7 . Argument .in the case lasted throughout ' tho day. ' > , ~ • The- Court-reserved its 'decision.i