
    Barfield v. Putzel et al.
    
    Interlocutory injunction is not a matter of right but of discretion. This discretion is entrusted by law, not to the Supreme Court, but to the judges of the superior courts. In the present case the application being a novel one, and the evidence being conflicting, there was certainly no abuse of discretion in denying the injunction.
    April 10, 1893.
    Argued at the last term.
    Petition for injunction. Before Judge Miller. Bibb county. June 30, 1892.
    The object of the petition was, to prevent the establishment of a bar-room upon the first floor of a building in Macon, on the second floor of which the plaintiff occupied rooms in which he had practiced his profession of dental surgery for thirteen years, and, as he claimed, had built up a lucrative business which would be practically destroyed by the nuisance of a bar-room with a large glass front and with an entrance very close to the entrance to the stairway leading to the second floor, three fourths of his patrons being ladies and children who would be loth to visit his offices with the noise and other conduct incident to a bar-room in such close proximity, etc. He further claimed that, though there was no written contract that the premises should not be used for a bar-room, he had many times been assured by his former landlady, as well as by the agents of his present landlord, when making his rent contracts, that the first story of the building should not be used for bar-room purposes. His last contract was made m July, 1891, to terminate on May 1, 1893. Upon the material issues the evidence was conflicting.
    H. Y. Washington, Hardeman & Nottingham and William Brunson, Jr., for plaintiff. Dessau & Bartlett .and Alex. Proudeit, for defendants.
   Judgment affirmed.  