IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5081, 28 January 1927, Page 2

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT

ONE DEFAULT, ONE COMMITMENT. LAW POINT DECIDED. - An interesting point of law which had no precedent in New Zealand Courts was decided by Mr E. Page, S.M., at Wellington on Wednesday, when he gave reserved judgment in a civil case, J. Jacobus v. D. McLean. The facts were that plaintiff obtained judgment, in March, 1924, Tor. the sum of £7 Os 6d, and in November of the same year issued a judgment summons against defendant. Default was fixed at five days’ imprisonment, and defendant served the sentence. On August 31, 1926, a further judgment summons in respect off the same judgment was issued by plaintiff, and this case was heard before the magistrate on January 20. Mr Page said that there appeared to be no New Zealand decision upon the point, but the English Statute was similar though not identical in terms to our own Statute. He quoted a case of English law which decided that where a debtor has once been -committed upon a judgment summons a second warrant of commitment could not be issued against him in respect of the same debt. “It seems to me,” said Mr Page, “that the principle our Act and the language us®.l cont-cinplate that only one order of imprisonment can issue in respect of default in payment of a judgment. The default, in my opinion, is not a continuing act rendering the defendant liable to repented periods of imprisonment. Section 26 of the rules, (hough it applies to moneys payable |>.v instillments, seems to me to confirm tiffs view. I think, therefore, that there is no power in this Court to impose a second term of imprisonment, and that this summons must be struck out.”