"Bound" Houses.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 4981, 13 April 1889, Page 3

"Bound" Houses.

The following from the New Zealand Herald of April 3rd, was briefly telegraphed by the Press Association on that date ; “ The case of Khrenfried v. Lynch, decided yesterday by His Honor Mr Justice Gillies, is probably the most important case that has ever been decided here as affecting the respective rights of brewers and hotelkeepers. The facts were briefly these ; Mr Lynch held a lease from Mr Patrick Gleeson, by which he bound himself not to sell any wines, spirits, colonial beer, or other goods kept in stock by Gleeson other than what were purchased of him. Gleeson transferred his benefits under this lease to Mr Ehrenfried. It seems Gleeson was in the habit of supplying Lynch with Dunedin beer, as being colonial beer, brewed at Dunedin. But Ehrenfried refused to do so, as ho did not keep it in stock. His honor held that Lynch was only bound to buy of Ehrenfried such colonial beer and other goods as Ehrenfried habitually kept in stock—which means that if Lynch demands Colonial beer brewed, say, at Adelaide, or Dunedin, is hound to supply it at a fair market price and of good quality, and if ho refuses so to supply it, Lynch can buy it elsewhere. The effect of this is of course, that Ehrenfried cannot insist on Lynch taking beer brewed by him, or any other particular sort of colonial beer, but that Lynch can elect what sort of beer or other goods ho wishes for, and then demand to he supplied by Ehrenfried with them, and if not so supplied can buy them elsewhere. This decision may have widespread effect, as brewers, we understand, have been in the habit of construing the term colonial beer in their leases as solely beer brewed by them. A minor point in the case, which, however, was decided in favour of the plaintiff, was baaed on the following facts Lynch had the verbal permission of his lessor, Gleeson, to buy wines and spirits from a third person. This permission, it is alleged by the pleadings, Ehrenfried approved after buying the benefit of the lease from Gleeson; and the defendants pleaded the lease and permission of Gleeson and Ehrenfried. But His Honor held that the parol leave and permission could not be pleaded against the express terms of a deed. His Honor also decided that a more agreement to refer to arbitration does not oust the jurisdiction ,of the court.