RECOVERY OF FINES.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2145, 30 July 1907, Page 2

RECOVERY OF FINES.

AN INTERESTING CASE

Press Association. 1 Wellington; last night, in the Court of Appeal in W. Heddio v. Alillar, Air. Bell contended I that as a general rule a fine was re- I coverablo in the civil jurisdiction ot a court. Although th© process! of re covering a fine under sec. 101 ot the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1905, was through tho civil jurisdiction of a court, tho fine was still a penalty, not a debt. This penalty was an exception to section 4 of the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act, 18/4, ,i nd as imprisonment for non-payment •ia l not been abolished., a writ or attachment could issue. Ho furthei contended that this was a debt to the Crown, and therefore the Imprisonnunt for Debt Abolition Act, 18/4, did not apply, and respondent was attachable for non-payment, j Air. Stout also addressed the Court. Air. Ravmond, for respondent, argued that the only remedy of appellant was that of a judgment creditor for recovery of a judgment debt; that commitment under the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act is not a proI cess for enforcing payment,; that payment of a penalty is not enforcable by attachment; that the fine inflicted lon respondent/ was not within the words of Rule 386 of the code of civil procedure, which conferred on the Court the power to issue a writ of at- | tacliment. The Court was left sitting.