APPEAL COURT

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 270, 5 April 1911, Page 7

APPEAL COURT

MACDONALD v. ROSE. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Tuesday. I In a case before the Appeal Court to- | day, Thomas Kennedy Mac Donald, j M.L.C., appellant, Mary Rose and others respondents,, the action arose out of the administration by appellant of the estates of Robert Greenfield, whose children are respondents. The statement of claim in the Supreme Court was that appellant was appointed executor and trustee under the will of Greenfield, who died in 1805, and undertook the performance and execution of the trusts of the will, also of certain settlements made. It was alleged during the time he acted as trustee appellant failed to render accounts of his administration, though repeatedly applied to by respondents. Respondents prayed that appellant be removed from office as trustee, and an order was subsequently made by consent to have the accounts taken. In December, 1910, an order was made for the payment into court of £3647 3s 3d, agreed to be due by appellant. The next step was a motion for leave to issue a writ of attachment against appellant for failure to comply with the order for payment, and an order was duly made for the issue of a writ. Appellant then moved to set aside the writ, and after further proceedings the case was removed to the Appeal Court to decide whether the court had jurisdiction to make the order. Mr. C. H. Treadwell appeared for appellant, and Mr. A. W. Blair for respondents. Mr. Treadwell opened by outlining the history of the case. Argument of a highly technical nature is proceeding. Wellington, Last Night. Mr. Treadwell contended that the ac- ' tion for accounts was an action for debt, ' and therefore within the exceptions contained in rule 392, and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to make a writ of attachment. The Court adjourned till 10.30 to-morrow.