WRIT OF ATTACHMENT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1126, 13 May 1911, Page 4

WRIT OF ATTACHMENT.

T. K. MACDOXALD TO APPEAR IN COURT TO-DAY.

The. writ of attachment against the Hon. Thomas Kennedy Macdbnald, M.L.C., defendant in the action Eoso and others v. Macdonald, has beou issued, and the sheriff (.Mr. D. G. A. Cooper) is thereby .directed, to attach, the defendant and produce him in tho Supremo Court at 10 a.m. to-day,' "there to abido tJio or(hv of tho Court."

A writ of attachment is the preliminary to a sentence, of imprisonment unless tho defendant can satisfy tho Court that such should not bo imposed. Tho defendant in tho present instance will have an opportunity of doing so this morning. The caso of Koso v. Maedonald is concerned with tho defendant's administration as trustee of tho Greenfield estate, of which tho plaintiffs aro beneficiaries. The issue of a writ of attachmcnt was originally authorised by tho Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Chapman on l'ohruary 10, 1011, in consequent ol.the failure of the defendant t<, satisfy a judgment against him for upwards of £3001), delivered by Mr. Justice Cooper on December 22, 1910. After sundry other proceedings, the matter came beioro tho Court of Appeal, which, in the mam, upheld the judgment of the .Supreme Court, but hold that a writ of attachment could not issue in respect of a certain sum of £240, which had been included in the total. Making this deduction, the Comi, of Appeal allowed tho issue of a writ of attachment in respect of tho non-payment by Macdonaid of the sum of £3264 ss. 9d.

Much public interest has been taken in this case—partly because of tho efforts' made to keep all tho, proceedings secret until the matter came into- tho Court of Appeal. Tho judges on tho Bench this morning will be the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Mr. Justice Chapman. Tho actual steps to be taken by the sheriff by way of executing a writ of attachment are a matter for .his own discretion. In tho present instance (ae in other recent cases), Mr. Cooper hae not thought it necessary to interfere ill any way with tho liberty ol the defendant up to tho time fixed for the sitting of tho Court.