PALMERSTON NORTH SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 199, 17 May 1919, Page 9

PALMERSTON NORTH SUPREME COURT

'By Telegraph—Special Oorreipondent.) Palmerston N,. May IG. Sitting in Bankruptcy at the Supreme Court at Palmerston North this morning His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman heard a motion for the discharge of Andrew Johnson, of Shannon, labourer, which wns mado by Mr. J. P. Innes on behalf of the bankrupt. The motion, which was' not opposed by tho Official Assignee, was granted, His Honour remarking that there had been nothing reprehensive in the bankrupt's conduct. Mention was, made by Mr. Cooper of tho defended divorce suit, which was disposed of at the last session, of De Ridder v. De Ridder, in which the petitioner secured the annulment pf his marriage with Alice Dp Ridder. Counsel said that there was (in application for alimony on behalf 'of the respondent, which he asked be adjourned for hearing at tho next sittings of tho Court. Mr. Moore, who appeared for the petitioner, offering no,objection, His Honour granted the required adjournment.

Mr. Mooto applied for an adjournment till next sittings in tho civil notion, Samuel Kirkland v. tho Arcadia Picture Company, Ltd., a claim for ,£Bl7 7s. 7d. for goods supplied and work done. The ground of the application was that since the action had been commenced the statement of claim had been materially amended. The application, which was opposed by Mr. Cooper on behalf of tho plaintiff, was granted by His Honour. Argument was heard in an appeal from the Magistrate's decision in tho civil action, Oscar Albert Jorgenson (appellant) v. the Arcadia Picture Co., Ltd. (respondents), a claim for services rendered as architect to the respondent company. In the -JjOwer Court Jorgenson sued the company in respect of i his services in carrying out and completing the work of supervising the construction of the Arcadia Picture Theatre in Dannevirke after its abandonment by the contractors. The defendant company put in a letter from Jorgenson, in which he offered to assist in this work free of charge. The Magistrate hold that this letter was fatal to the plaintiff's claim, and he accordingly gave judgment for the defendant company. After hearing the legal argument f(is Honour said that he could not see.any reason for disturbing the Magistrate's decision. His Honour therefore dismissed the appeal, with costs against the appellant. The Court, then adjourned till next sessions. •