$20,000 Damages Claimed by Caldbeck, Macgregor & Ca. from an ex-Employee An alleged breach of agreement by an employee was the subject of a case which came before his Hon-on: Judge Grain at H. M. Supreme Court on Monday. Plaintiffs, Messrs. Caldbeck, Macgregor & Ca., are suing Mr. Robert Brydon Wood upon the following claim:
(1) An injunction to restrain the defendant from carrying on or be img concerned or interested in, in any capacity whatsoever, the business of a distiller or manufacturer of aerated waters in China for a period of 10 years from August 31, 1922, in accordance with an agreement dated June 8, 1921.
(2) Damages for breach of said agreement, $20,000.
Mr. M. Reader Harris appeared for plaintiffs and Mr, R. N. Macleod for defendant.
Mr. Macleod asked for an order for pleadings.
opposing this application, Mr Reader Harris said the action was one to restrain defendant from breaking a clause in his agreement with plaintiffs, or in the alternative, damages, The facts of the case were simple, merely that defendant applied for permission to do 50, Fermission was refused, and he then joined Watson's Minera] Water Ca. The point in the case would be legal argument as to whether that clause was good or bad. If it was good, plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction or damages. Law as to restricted covenants was always very difficult to decide, and in its present state counsel was not going to pretend that anybody could advise definitely as to whether a clause was good or bad. He had advised his clients to proceed with the case, but it ould have been going far to advise them to apply for an interim injunction, for in that case defendant would lose his employment with Watson's and, in the event of a ruling in his favour, might be entitled to heavy damages, At the same time plaintiffs were suffering damages for every day defendant remained in the employ of Watson's, and counsel therefore asked that the case be set down for early trial, upon his undertaking to provide defendant with particulars within 24 hours.
Mr. Macleod replied that he dit rot mind a speedy trial, but he saw no reason why plaintiffs should not file a statement of claim within 24 hours. It was a little difficult to see from the writ exactly what claim plaintiffs were going to make out, and the burden was upon them to show that the covenant was reasonable. The agreement was a very peculiar one.
Upon looking at the agreement, his Lordship said he thought de tendant was entitled to pleadings,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.