"IN CUSTODY."

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1129, 17 May 1911, Page 4

"IN CUSTODY."

CASE OF T. K. MACDONALD. THE COURT'S LATEST DECISION. STILL ANOTIIER STAGE. An interesting decision relating to thd writ of attachment, which has been issued against the lion. T. K. Macdouald, id.L.C, in the uaso Rose and others v. Macdonald was delivered by tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) yesterday. When Macdonahl was bcluru the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Chapman last Saturday in the custody of the sheriff (Mr. D. G. A. Cooper), the Chief Juslice expressed th-j opinion that, tho writ having been executed, Iho Court had no further function to perform unless a discharge was applied for. Mr. Tre.vlwell, for tho defendant, thereupon moved for u discharge on tho ground (if ill-health, and on other grounds which were disallowed by tho Court. Their Honours fixed next Friday as tho dale for going into tho question of the delendant s health, and promised to give a decision yesterday morning as to whether the defendant must remain in the custody of the sheriff unjtil Friday, or whether the operation of tho writ of attachment could be stayed (as Mr. Treadwell had asked) without the prisoner being linaliy discharged. This was th< position when the Court opened yesterday morning. The Chief Justice and Mr, Justice Chapman were on the bench, Mr, A. W. Blair (lor the plaintiffs) and Ms; Trend well (for the defendant) were prat sent, and the usual audience, for Iho criminal sessions, which were about ta recommence for tho day, had begun tc gather at the back of the Courtroom. Tin defendant was not brought into Court, though lie was on the premises. Th« case was not called upon or announced in any way, and no name was mentioned, except as below,

The Chief Justice said: "I have looked into the authorities since the matter rap before the Court last, and they confirm the view I then slated, namely, that once Ike writ is issued and the defendant arrnr.ted, there if. no need, in connection with a writ of attachment, lo bring him before the Court at all."

His Honour went ou to say that this seemed to be clearly laid down in certain eases, which ho named, "Thorefore, the procedure in a case of this sort—because then! is u distinction between different, kinds of contempt—is to proceed by way of a motion for discharge. That has been done, "Wo are now asked to say that wo should order a stay of tho operation of tho writ, alter arrest. In my opinion, in which my brother Chapman concurs, it is very doubtful if wo have that power. I don't say wo havo not tho power, but it is a matter of doubt. There is no clear authority. AVo are, therefore, of the opinion that tha defendant should remain as at present until Friday at 2 p.m., when the matter will be discussed ou the motion which' Mr. Troadwell has made."

As to the steps which are being taken to carry out the abovo decision and to comply with the writ of attachment, it is interesting to learn that the defendant is spending most of his time at his private residence, and is kept under strict surveillance by a subordinate official who has been told off for that purposo by tho sheriff. This information was not obtained 'from l the sheriff. When seen yesterday, that officer again declined So state in what way ho was keeping tho defendant in custody. "I've got him in charge," he said, and, when further pressed, ho added that ho thought that was all the public need bo told.