IMPRISONMENT FOB DEBT ACT.
At the R,M. Court yesterday, the Batik of New Zealand proceeded by judgment summons against A. R. : Pye, plumber, under the'lmprisonment ; for Debt Act, to make him show cause why lie should not be imprisoned for non-payment of £l9 15s advanced by the bank. Defendant did not appear, and it was stated that he had gone with his family to Napier.’ Mr Barton, for the bank, called JMr William Bahnforth, who' produced a receipt for £5, paid by him to defendant in January for ahorse, saddle and bridle. Mr Barton argued that under the Act an order could be made for imprisonment if defendant failed to appear or give good reasons for his absence, if it could be proved that since the judgment he had the means to pay the .debt, or part of it ; or if he would not answer questions as to his means,' : His Worship said he would not feel justified in making an order unless he was satisfied defendant had the means to pay; Mr Barton : I think the Court will find it will be a matter of inconvenience if it holds ho need ; not attend, became we cannot prove he is not able to pay. By that there is no power under the Imprisonment for Debt Act.
His Worship : I do not see why .he should not be subpzenaed and compelled to attend ;in fact that is often done. Some magistrates, in addition to a judgment sumrnonM, add a sub osna to it.
Mr Barton : That is really a confession of.weakness on the part of the Court that section one of the Act is unoperative. Mr Carew, of Dunedin, holds that defendant should have over and above sufficient for his maintenance.
His Worship : Mr Carew’s decision is merely in accordance with what has always been the practice in New Zealand. I have always sustained that. Mr Barton : He is not like Mr Crawford of Wellington, who virtually repealed the Imprisonment for Debt Act, 1874. The Act .is really intended for the protection of debtors who have not the .means to pay. ■ His Worship : I have always been of the same opinion, thAt you require tp show he has more than sufficient for the support of himself and family. If I had
prima facie evidence before the Cour that defendant had the money to pay might make an order.
Mr Barton agreed to take an adjournment, with a view to compelling defendant to attend by subpoena.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PATM18830207.2.9
Bibliographic details
Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 994, 7 February 1883, Page 2
Word Count
414IMPRISONMENT FOB DEBT ACT. Patea Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 994, 7 February 1883, Page 2
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in