SEQUEL TO “SECRET" CASE

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3218, 15 May 1911, Page 4

SEQUEL TO “SECRET" CASE

HON. T. K. MACDONALD IN SHERIFF'S CUSTODY.

SHOULD HE BE DETAINED?

A PLEA OF ILL-HEALTH.

r?EB FEEBB ASSOCIATION.! WELLINGTON, May 13. Before the Chief Justice and JudgeChapman to-day the Hon. T. Kennedy MacDonald was called on to shou cause whv a writ of attach men.!/ should not be enforced, be not having paid the amount ordered bv the Court to be paid in the recent case Rose and others v. MacDonald. Mr. Blair appeared in support of the application, and Mr. Treadwell for MacDonald. MacDonald was in custody. Mr. Treadwell put m a medical testimony from two doctors regarding MacDonald’s health, but Mr Blair contended that the attachment must be made, and MacDonald could later on proceed on these grounds. , , ~ Mr. Treadwell contended that _ the question of liability could be considered, but the Bench decided that the Appeal Court had adjudged that point, and all Mr. Treadwell could do was to file a motion for discharge or stay of the writs. Sir Robert Stout thought that as MacDonald was in custody, Mr Treadwell could not deal with the case in any other way. Mr. Treadwell then contended that the medical testimony was a sufficient answer, but Mr. Blair urged that the Court had no power to entertain a motion for discharge. The Court then adjourned till 12 to allow Mr. Treadwell to file a motion for discharge, MacDonald remaining in custody.

Upon resuming Mr. Treadwell contended that MacDonald might file an affidavit showing that he had done his best to satisfy the judgment, and that his health would not allow of his serving a period of detention, and that under section 4 of the Judication Act, the Court had discretion to stay the operation of the writ, pending the filing of further affidavits re MacDonald’s health.

Sir Robert Stout said he thought the section referred to before a writ was issued, and the Appeal Court had already decided against MacDonald. Mr. Treadwell said he wished to deal with the general aspect of the case, but Sir Robert Stout told him that 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 that he knew of no case where a dishonest person, so termed by the Court, had been discharged under such a writ on the ground of illhealth, except in one instance, in 1885, where the Home Secretary wrote to the Court, and an order of discharge was made without prejudice. That case, Scarlet v. Fletcher, was not a trustee case.

Replying to Mr. Blair. Sir Robert Stout said perhaps there was power for the Court to suspend the operation of a writ without such action being regarded as a discharge. Mr. Blair said’ if the Court decided it had no jurisdiction to deal with an application regarding ill-health, then suspension of the operation of the writ was out of the question. . Sir Robert Stout said there was doubt m the Court’s mind whether the Court could grant a stay without prejudicing tne case, and consequently defendant oiild have to stay in the sheriff’s eustody until Tuesday mornino- at 10 o’clock when the question “of star would be considered. The Question of discharge on the ground of ili-health woukl be dealt with on Friday, bv Whicn day affidavits must he filed*