SUPREME COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 18 June 1929, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

GREYMOUTH, June 17. The quarterly session of the Supreme Court in Greymoutlx was commenced yesterday afternoon before His Honour, Mr Justice Adams. IN DIVORCE. MAJOR V. MAJOR. Percy Major, labourer, of Christchurch, petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage with Dorothy Emily Major, on the grounds of adultery, I vain Saunders, labourer, of Greymouth, being named as co-respondent. After hearing evidence His 'Honour made a decree nisi to bo made absolute in three months. No costs were asked by petitoner against co-respon-dent. BOUSTRIDGE v. BOUSTRIRGE. Francis Frederick Boustridge petitioned for a divorce against Ivy Pear] Boustridge on the grounds of three years separation. '' • / Petitioner, in evidence, stated that he was married to respondent on 11th May, ,1922. Afer the marriage he resided at Brunnerton with his wife until January, 1925. A separation order was made at Greymouth on 6th April, 1925. He had not lived with his wife since that date. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. DRAKE v. SAR.ATY. A contract to erect a single storied building in Boundary Street, Greymouth, entered into by John Drake, Contractor, with Balmy Sanity, both of Greymouth, led to an action for wrongful breach of the contract brought by Drake against Bahay Sanity. The contract was signed on 24th August 1926, and Drake commenced work on 29th September 1926. On 21st October he received notice through defendant’s solicitors to cease work, as it was alleged he was not carrying it out in accoidI once with the specifications Paid down. Plaintiff therefore claimed £433 11s 6d, being the balance owing on the work already done (claimed as amounting to £587 11s 6d) up to the time of receiving the notice. He further claimed interest on the £433 11s Gd at the rate of ten per cent., up to the date of the judgment, from 26th October 1926, and asked for £2OO damages through wrongful broach of tho contract, the costs of the action and such other relief as the Court may direct. The hearing was not concluded when the Court rose*-