The Southland F. M. and P. E. Co., v. Nelson Bros., Ltd.

Southland Times, Issue 13269, 20 July 1895, Page 2

The Southland F. M. and P. E. Co., v. Nelson Bros., Ltd.

(By

Telegraph.)

Dunedin, July 19. A phase of the case in which the Southland Frcxen Meat Co. claim L 30,000 damages from Nelson Bros., Limited, for an alleged breach of agreement came before Mr Justice Williams in Chambers to-day, being in the shape of a summons for the discovery of documents and one for intenogatories. The plaintiff company in 1891 made an agreement to sell to the defendants the whole of their output of frozen meat, Nelson Bros, agreeing that during a term of three years they would not erect, assist, or be in any way concerned or interested in freezing works in Southland. It is now alleged that Nelson Bros, within that period became interested in the Ocean Beach works. The defendants deny the allegation and say they only entered into an agreement with J, G. Ward, then owner of the Ocean Beach works, for the purchase of all sheep frozen at those works, but they had no interest or concern in the works. In giving judgment. his Honour said : On the whole I think these interrogatories should be answered. In coming to that conclusion I am very much influenced by- the existence of the agreement set out in the statement of the defence which the defendants admit they entered into on the Bth May, 1892, with the Hon. J. G. Ward. Whether that agreement was or was not a breach of the agreement which the defendants had entered into in June, 1891, with the plaintiffs it is not necessary now to decide. What is very clear, however, is that the second agreement was calculated to prejudicially affect to a considerable extent the business, trade and profits of the present plaintiffs. It appears, therefore, that the defendants, by their own admission—and assuming this second agreement was not a breach of the first—endeavoured to get round the first agreement and sail as close as possible to the wind so as to avoid a breach of it. That naturally raises a suspicion that if they had done this in the case of the agreement they may have tried to get round their first agreemeuc in other ways. The only way to ascertain whether they have done so is to enquire in as searching a way as possible into the particulars of their financial operations. H id it not been for the agreement they have admitted I should have hesitated at the present stage to order interrogatory 11 to be answered. Order for discovery in the ordinary form. Order for interrogatories as prayed. Affidavit to be made by William Nelson and filed within four weeks.

The principal interrogatories ask for explanations of investments referred to in the balance-sheets of 1892 93-94 and ’95, which increased from L 5812 to L 54,712 ; a statement of the terms or arrangements between the defendants and the Ocean Beach Company, and if it is true, as stated by Mr VV. S. Davidson, one of the directors of the defendant company, at an ordinary general meeting of shareholders of the defendants held on sth February, 1895, that the defendants had then lately acquired a large interest in the said Ocean Beach Freezing Works, and that this had tended to swell the item of investments in the balancesheet.