558 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Both parties are veterinary surgeons at Sudbury, and this 
action was brought to recover damages for breach of a con- 
tract, whereby the defendant bound himself not to practise 
within seven miles of Sudbury, under a penalty of £500. 
The action was brought by direction of the Court of 
Chancery, to try whether he did promise as stated in the 
declaration. The plaintiff was a veterinary surgeon of very 
long standing in Sudbury, and in 1844 defendant became his 
apprentice, and the usual stipulation was entered into, that 
he should not practise within a certain distance of Sudbury 
after his articles expired. He was bound for four years, and 
in 1848, the plaintiff entered into partnership with him. The 
material clause in the articles of partnership was that if 
either of the parties should be desirous of dissolving the co- 
partnership after a term of six years, by his giving six 
months’ notice, it should be accepted, and the party giving 
notice should not after such dissolution set up in business 
within seven miles of Sudbury, under a penalty of £500. 
The partnership was a very advantageous one for the defend- 
ant, he had no capital when he entered into it, and the busi- 
ness was considerable, bringing in an income of £500 a year: 
defendant was to live in the house, to be boarded at the ex- 
pense of plaintiff, to have £‘20 for horse-keep, and one third 
of the profits. At the beginning of 1 852, the plaintiff had a 
very serious illness, and some proposals were made to alter 
the partnership arrangement, but in the course of that year 
plaintiff made an arrangement for an assistant. In August, 
1853, offers were made by defendant to withdraw from the 
partnership, but the great object at which he was always 
aiming, was to get rid of the undertaking not to practise 
within seven miles. After several fruitless attempts, Mr. 
Squire, who was employed by the plaintiff, had a conversa- 
tion with defendant, who agreed that he could not practise 
within seven miles under the penalty, and said if plaintiff 
would pay him his share of the profits he would go right 
aw T ay. The plaintiff agreed to this, and to submit all ques- 
tions to two parties to decide between them ; plaintiff ap- 
pointed Mr. Squire, and defendant employed Mr. Rolfe, who 
appointed Mr. Blunden as their umpire. Mr. Blunden made 
an award which was afterwards signed by both parties, and 
which alluded to the agreement of June 1848, in which there 
was not a single clause applicable to a dissolved partnership, 
except the 1 1th. Mr. Blunden’s award ran thus: 
“ Mr. Squire and Mr. Rolfe having agreed to leave the 
settlement of these matters to me, I have carefully examined 
the different accounts relative thereto, and my award is that 
