ROSE V. MACDONALD.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXIX, Issue 10768, 17 May 1911, Page 2

ROSE V. MACDONALD.

(Per Press Association.) Wellington, May 16. Can the Court order a stay of the operation of a writ of attachment after the person named therein has been arrested? This was the question which their Honors the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Chapman had to decide to-day in connection with the Rose v. Macdonald case. The point was raised in the proceedings fast Saturday, the Court reserving its decision. At the time the Chief Justice remarked that if it were found that a stay of operations of the writ would be a discharge under the Act it would result in putting an end to the whole proceedings. The Court thought there was, a risk of this, and so preferred to reserve Its judgment. To-day the decision was announced by the Chief Justice. The defendant was not present in Court, but was represented by his cdunsel. Sir_ Robert Stout said that he had looked into the authorities since the matter Jusi came before the Court, and they had confirmed the views lie previously held—namely, that once the writ had been issuedand the defendant arrested under it there Was no need to bring him before the Court at all on a matter of this sort. This seemed to be clearly laid down in certain cases, Which were quoted by. iis Honor. The law Was plain, and therefore the only eotlfsel open in a case of this kind —of course, there Was a distinction between the different kinds of contempt—was to proceed by means of a motion fpr discharge. The Court was not asked to say that it could order a stay of opera- \ tion of the writ after arrest. In Ins I Honor's opinion, which was concurred in by Mr Justice Chapman, it was very doubtful whether they had this power. They did not say the Court had not the power, but that'it was a matter of much doubt. There was no clear authority on the subject. "We are therefore of opinion," concluded the Chief Justice, "that the defendant should remain as at present until Friday afternoon at 2 o'clock, when the matter will bo discussed on the motion that Mi- Treadwell I (his counsel) has filed—namely, that the Court inquire into the case and discharge the defendant from custody on the grounds (1) That imprisonment will be gravely prejudicial to the defendant's state of health; (2) that no benefit will accrue to the plaintiffs from imprisonment; (3) that the real object of the attachment proceedings is not to obtain payment of the amount shown to be duo on the defendant's accounts; (4) that in all equity and good conscience there are large amounts due to the defendant which lie cannot legally claim at present, but which ought to be taken into account in determining whether he should be committed to prison or not."