COURT GRANTS INJUNCTION

Southland Times, Issue 24446, 28 May 1941, Page 7

COURT GRANTS INJUNCTION

Dispute About Beer Bottles

Reserved judgment in the case in which the Invercargill Bottle Company, Ltd., (Mr G. M. Broughton) claimed £2OO damages from Holloway Brothers, Ltd. (Mr F. G. O’Beirne) and sought an injunction restraining the defendants from detaining, selling or offering for sale bottles which were the property of the plaintiff company was given in the Supreme Court yesterday by his 1 Honour, Mr Justice Kennedy. “The plaintiff is the owner of a large number of bottles on which is blown or embossed the company’s trade mark and also the following words: ‘This bottle remains the property of the Invercargill Bottle Company, Ltd., stated the judgment. “Such bottles are delivered empty, washed and) sterilized to four persons only, of whom the defendant is not one, and then by way of hire only. The hirers fill the bottles with beer and sell to the public such beer so bottled in the plaintiff’s bottles. Any of the bottles returned to the hirers, emptied of their contents, are delivered by the hirers to the plaintiff and the plaintiff pays the hirers 1/6 a dozen for bottles returned. RIGHTS NOT DISPUTED “The defendant, Holloway Brothers, Limited, has on many occasions returned the plaintiff’s bottles and the plaintiff has paid 1/6 a dozen for the bottles returned, and the plaintiff states it is willing to continue these payments. There is no dispute in this case as to the plaintiff’s rights. What, however, is complained of by the plaintiff is that the defendant company has wrongfully interfered with the plaintiff’s rights. The plaintiff alleges in j particular, that on November 30, 1940, and on March 4, 1941 and on various |

other dates, the defendant atempted to sell or hire, or offered for sale or hire, or purported to sell or hire such bottles so marked to Richard Harris, of Lorneville, hotelkeeper. The defendant denied these allegations and pleaded that if the plaintiff had been deprived of the use of its bottles for its business, it was only temporarily and that it was done accidentally because of the large number of bottles handled, or through unintentional mistakes from time to time made by its servants in dealing with the bottles. ENTITLED TO INJUNCTION “I conclude from the evidence that the defendant company was deliberately and not merely by unintentional mistake, wrongfully dealing with 1.8. C. bottles. If sales, or other disposal of 1.8. C. bottles, did not take place on ‘November 30, 1940, or on March 4, 1941, it was only because the defendant company had been observed. On the evidence, then, I conclude that there i was deliberate interference by a servant of the defendant with the plaintiff’s rights in 1.8. C. bottles, and that while the defendant company professed to respect them, John Francis Holloway, the secretary, surreptitiously infringed them. In such circumstances the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction.” The plaintiff was granted an injunction restraining the defendant from detaining, selling or offering for sale bottles which were the property of the plaintiff company. The defendant was ordered to pay costs £26/5/- and witnesses’ expenses and disbursements to be fixed by the registrar.