Yet the agreement was held to be not too wide as applying to the Eastern hemisphere. It did, of course, appear in face of the facts urged by Lord Justice Cozens-Hardy that this was a wide restrain, Notwithstanding this the majority of, the Judges of the Court of Appeal held' that the restraint w for the last thirty years showed, the in-judgment showed, as he thought all
tion of the learned judges at home, in view of the advance of modern life, had been to enforce these covenants more and more, in view of the change in conditions of commerce. Referring to this question of the wide nature of the term "Eastern hemisphere," and as showing this modern tendency on the part of the judges, counsel referred his Lordship to what Lord Justice Romer said in thi column of page 369, where he Lai borne in mind that th these parte were, by implication, not intended. There was no doubt that the learned Lord Justice for the purpose of re-construing the covenant practically road in words that did not occur, at all. There was another point. Amongst the relief plaintiffs claimed was damages. He might ssy at once that plainti fully recognised, owing to dofondant's position, he being an unch charged bankrupt, it would no use asa avy damages. They ther lence to show they
proposed to waive any claim they might have as to damages. No doubt they would be entitled to some damages even without a special claim, but they would be quite satisfied with the remedy they asked, that was to say the remedy by way of an injunction. Of course as the general law stated by Mr.
counsel quite agreed that the teat his Lordship had to apply was whether the covenant was, or was not, reasonably necessary for the protection'of the covenantee. Counsel contended in coming to conclusion.on that matter, as he had submitted in his opening, dnd. as' was admitted by Mr, MeNeill, it was for defendant to show, as in cases he had quoted, thatthe covenant was unreasonable, It was for him to show that the covenant was of such a wide nature. as to be unreasonable under the circumstances. Unless dofendant could show that the, covenant which he, a man of mature age, entered into was too wide, the Court would not allow him to escape from his contract. Counsel thought that on this poi nothing could' be more opposi the remarks of Lord Justice Lindley, Master of the Rolls, in the case of Underwood v. Barker (1. Chancery Div., 1899, p. 305), in which his Lordship held that it lay on defendant to establish some specific ground to show that the covenant was too wide, Every single word of the passage applied to the present case,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.