DEBTORS AND CREDITORS

Southland Times, Volume VII, Issue 6, 6 July 1866, Page 3

DEBTORS AND CREDITORS

(E n the JS T ew Zealand Advertiser, 22nd June) Tie question of an alteration in the ■.-i.-.s,nt Debtors and Creditors Act is one ■)■ must occupy the attention of the ; .. r:>: iture during its next session, seeing i:. ..-.Q complaints a gains c the existing : -..era are universal throughout the Colony ; and there can be little doubt that the suggestions of mercantile men, who are themselves most nearly affected by it, and suffer most from its insufficiency, will be of great value in framing any new Act. "We are therefore, pleased to see that if the Chamber of Commerce of this city has treated the matter lightly, other Chambers have devoted considerable attention to it, and have given expression to their opinions on the subject. The first and main amendment that is required is in the administration of insolvents' estates, and here we are much inclined to agree with the €gcommendation that the administration should be taken out of the hands of the Supreme Court, except in cases where, through fraud, it may be necessary for the Courfto interfere. *It appears to us that the chief point to be considered is the great difference between the insolvent through misfortune and the insolvent through fraud, which is not sufficiently marked in the law as it stands. The one has to go through exactly the same course that the other aoes, until his honesty or dishonesty is proved. Both have to appear alike, very much in the semblance of criminals, "before the Judge ; and the innocent, as well as the guilty, can be seized upon by a rapacious or vindictive creditor, and thrust into gaol, with little chance of clearing up his books, and no chance whatever of giving any assistance to his creditors in improving the available estate. The indiscriminate imprisonment of both classes is one of the worst features of the I ; resent law, and calls for speedy alteration. For our own parts, we would recommend the entire abolition of imprisonment for debt until fraud is proved. Then, and then only, should the law interfere in this manner, in order to punish for the past fraud, and to prevent its being further pursued ; but it is a very hard matter on any honest tradesman, who, by misfortune, is unable for a time to meet his liabilities, to be thrust inte prison and have a taint put upon his character, which will never afterwards be totally effaced. This class, to must be considered by far the more :n mierous, as will be seen by the decisions oi Judges of the Supreme Court in granting protection, which is a virtual acknowledgement that the debtor is not fraudulent; and yet the law is such, that it oppresses the many that a few may not escape. It may be said, that unless power is given to creditors to secure the person of their debtor their interests are likely to suffer. We do not think so, or, at all , Sj they would not sutler to an extent • . ny means proportionate to the injus- ; '.-:.• that is now done on the other side. ':- • ;tiealiv, the person of the debtor is of T:- alne to the creditors, and if he does ■ ■:.<:' away, he is not likely to take such an - : unt* of his property with him as to ~ .-.. inish the value of the estate very much. ■••'., -ides, it would work its own cure in way — that creditors would not trust r bebtors to so large an extent, or so : ./.scriruiuately, as they now do. If the !■■• )rds of insolvent cases be consulted, ; vill be found that there are very rare instances indeed in which the petitioner's property is such that it can ■be easilyremoved without the knowledge of creditors ; and here the latter must be left, to a certain extent, to watch over their own interests. They run the risk in trade of allowing those dealing with them to get into their debt, and it is their own look out that their clients do not do so beyond their means. Whilst, therefore, the fact of a debtor leaving or attempting to leave a place without doing all in his power to satisfy his creditors, should be considered as strong presumptive evidence of fraud, the creditors should have no power to throw him into prison until that fraud is at all events prima facie shown. In fact the present process should be justreversed, and'instead of a debtor being imprisoned for security until his case is tried, as can be done and is very frequently done, he should under no circumstance be put into gaol until it has been proved that he deserves to go there.