WRIT OF ATTACHMENT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 141, 15 June 1892, Page 5

WRIT OF ATTACHMENT.

NICHOLLS.-. V. HOLLAND.

On the 29th September last year an injuno tion was granted against one Holland to restrain bim from selling milk in the Borough of Parnell for a period of two years. Holland having disobeyed the ordor of tha Court, the matter again came before Mr Justice Conolly to-daiy. Mr Theo. Cooper moved in the case Nicholls v. Holland for the issue of a writ of attachment. He stated that the defendant had observed tho injunction until the, Ist May, 1092, when lie delivered'milk to Mr Nixon of Brighton Road, Parnell, and on the 2nd April he deHvored milk to Miss Dewes, at Parnell. Ail that the plaintiff desired was that the defendant should obey the writ oi injunction..

The .defendant, who was not represented by counsel, stated that he obeyed the injunction so long as his means would allow. He had been running all over tha country, trying *to get work, bub had been unable to get means to live. Ho was prepared to show that he was noti guilty in the firsb case. The defendant explained further that he had on two previous occasions instructed solicitors to appeal, but that in neither instance had his wishesbeen given effect to. He had broken the injunction in order to bring the case again before the Court.

His Honor stated that a motion to rescind them junction was dismissed on the 25th November, it having been decided that tha Court had nob power to rescind. Any appeal must be made to the Appeal Court, and no such appeal having been made he had no option in the matter. He could not now go into the merits of the case. An appeal musb be made within a period of twelve months from the date of the injunction, and there was still time to move in that direction. Leave to issue a writ of attachment was granted.