FRANKISH v. COLLIER.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2002, 24 July 1880, Page 4

FRANKISH v. COLLIER.

This ooae was heard yesterday at the Beeidtr.t Magistrate's Court, Ohnstohuroh. In April last, defendant on a judgment summons, was ordered by Mr Mellish to pay off a debt of £l6, with costs, in monthly instalments of £5 each. The instalments had been regularly paid, but in the interval it came to the knowledge ot plaintiff that defendant had purchased land from Matson and Co., upon which a deposit of £75 had been paid. Mr Struthera Williams, for plaintiff, now applied for variation of the judgment to immediate execution, on the ground that defendant had misled the adjudicating Magistrate as to his ability to pay, and that an opportunity for cross-exami-nation of the defendant had not been allowed. Sections 60 and 61 of the E.M. Act gavo the Court the necessary power. Mr McOonneL for defendant, pointed out that it was not customary or expedient to review the decisions of absent Magistrates. Defendant had not made nor intendod to make default in the payments ordered, and that the clauses of the Act referred to were inserted for the relief, in the first riaoe, of debtors who were imable to comply with orders of the Court, and the resumption afterwards of the first terms of payment should circumstances warrant the same. As to having misled the Magistrate, defendant? might have come into a fortune in the interval, or many things might have occurred to account for his being able to spend £75 on land. Mr Whitefoord uaid ho had no intention of going into Mr Mellish's refusal of cross examination, but if he was satisfied that there had been misleading, and of his power, he would order distress to issue. He would take time to consider, and give notice to both parties when to come up for judgment.