T. K. MACDONALD'S PREDICAMENT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXIX, Issue 10765, 13 May 1911, Page 4

T. K. MACDONALD'S PREDICAMENT.

(Per Press Association.) Wellington, May 13. Before Sir Robert Stout and Mr Justice Chapman to-day T. Kennedy Macdonald was called ou to show cause why a writ of attachment should not be enforced, he not having paid the /mount ordered by the Court to be paid ui the recent case Rose and others v. Macdonald. Mr Blair appeared in support of the application, and Mr TreadwelL for Mr Macdonald. , Mr Macdonald appeared m custody. Mr Treadwell put in medical testimony from two doctors regarding Mr Macdonald's health but Mr BUaircontended that the attachment must be madland that Mr Macdonald could later proceed on these grounds. Mr Treadwell contended that the auestion of liability could be considered, but the Bench decided that the Appeal Court had adjudged that point, and that all Mr Treadwell could do was to file a motion for the discharge or stay Stout thought that, as Mr Macdonald was m custody, Mr lreaa well could not deal with the case m any ot Mr treadwell then contended that medical testimony was a^u&cie at answer, but Mr Blair urged, that the Court nad no power to entertain a motion for di The l §ourt then adjourned till twelve, to allow Mr TreadweU to file a motion for discharge, Mr Macdonald remaining ni The St Ma s cdoiiakl case was resumed at i:L Mr ol Treadwell contended that Macdonald might file an affidavitßowing he had done his best to satisfy the jiulgnient, and that his health would not permit his serving a period of detention, and that under section 4 ot the Judicature Act the Court had discretion to stay the operation of a writ pending the filing of further affidavits. Mr Macdonald's health Sir Robert Stout said, he thought the section referred to applied before the writ was issued, and the Appeal Court had already decided against Macdonald. Mr Treadwell wished to deal with toe general aspect of the case, but bir Robert Stout told him he should have done so at the Appeal Court hearing, as they could not now question whether the writ should have been issued or not. Mr Blair said he knew ot no case whero a dishonest person so termed by the Court had been discharged under such a writ on the ground of ill-health except in one instance, namely, m IHHo, where the Home Secretary wroto to the Court, and the order uf discharge was made without prejudice. 'J.hat was the case of Scarlett v. Fletcher, but was not a trustee case. Replying to Mr Blair, Sir Robert Stout said that perhaps there was power for the Court to suspend operation ot the writ without such action being regarded as a discharge. . „ , , Mr Blair said that if the Court decided it had no jurisdiction to deal with the application regarding illhealth then the suspension of the operation of the writ was out of the question.

Sir Robert Stout said there was doubt in the Court's mind as to whether the. Court could grant a stay without prejudicing the case, and consequently defendant would have to stay in the sheriff's custody until Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock, when the question'of stay would be considered. The question of discharge on the. ground of ill-health would be dealt with on Friday, by which time affidavits must be filed. •■•'■■■