THE MACDONALD CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10206, 6 April 1911, Page 5

THE MACDONALD CASE.

LEGAL ARGUMENT CONTINUED. [By Telepravh — l'ress Association.} WELLINGTON, Last Night. In the Appeal Court case of MacDonald v. .Rose, Mr Treadwell, continuing his argument, contended that the order for payment was not a judgment, and therefore was not enforcable by attachment under Rule 392. Mr Justice Williams remarked that if that were so, a similar contention could be made under rules 391 and 393, and consequently there would be no means of enforcing any order of the Court. Mr Treadwell quoted authorities in support of his contention, that an order was not enforcable because the payments of interest *and commission included were not within the control of the appellant. Mr Blair, replying to the Bench, said that not a penny, interest" was included in the £3504 for which the writ of attachment had been issued, but commission was included as part capital. He pointed out that the writ of attachment had never been issued, nor had an order authorising its issue been sealed. The Court could therefore amend the order if any sum "Lad been wrongfully included. Mr Justice Williams said that there never was an order to pay the £3504 for non-payment of which the writ of attachment was issued.