Imprisonment for Debt.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 32, 8 February 1904, Page 4

Imprisonment for Debt.

AN" ORDER VARIED. In the Ci\ i 1 Court an Saturday, before Mr H. L. Stanford, S.M., V. Lisle applied for a variation of an order made hy tlx 4 S.M. in the ease of Haill v. l/isle ffjor a call)}. Defendant -applied in |H.»rson'. and Mr Wright ((lovett and Quilliamj appeared for judgment creditor. T je order made on Monday last was to the effect that the defendant was QinJered to pay £8 Is 6*l in a week, or in default one month's imprisonment. ! Mr Wiigjht urged 4 as a pK'luttinary I objection, that this was practically en application lor a re-hearing, and before that could he gran'ted defend- i ant must show that fresh evidence, i not within his power to produce at ' the time of the older, h(ad come to , light, sufficient to practically ensure a different order ; or that the defendant's circumstances had changed materially after the making of I the order. His Worship decided to hear the defendant. Defendant ofTored to pay I~*> per month, av.d pointed out that as his were but £3 per month, a fact which the plaintiff's counsel had not disputed, he was making the very best offer he coulid unidier the circumstance. In support of Ms argument he- stated that the intention of tlu? Act was that the damages fihou'rt he paid, mwi not that it should lie used as a means of oppression. He appealed to Mr Wright's chivalry not to take advantage of him with points of law, hut to be satisfied with the bona-fide offer which-he had maide. He appealed to his Worship for protection for his wife and children, who would bo left alone in the country, and asked what would happen to them if overtaken with illness. Mr Wright briefly reviewed the facts of the whole matter : that the cause of action arose in May last ; that deteulant hed undertaken to pay ; that the judgment creditor had been obliged to sue ; that judgment had bean. obtained in December ; and that the defendant had made no effort to p-ay. Jn suJrtmtting to any order he urged that defendant should ] pay the judgment creditor's costs in ! this application. He quoted the case of Ke : nncdy v. Jones. His Worship stated that ho himself had been counsel engaged on that case, and it was not a parallel one. Mr Wright them applied for costs, stating that the defendant had evaded payment of this claim since May last, and had expressed his intention not to pay for it at all. In giving judgment his Worship remarked that Lisle was right, that the Act should not be made an instrument of oppression. He sympathised with him, but there was no doubt that the debtor had shown systematic obstruction to the law. He would therefore older him to pay £2 within one wet>k ami £1 pur month. Afterwards this* was, on the application of the defendant, altered to £2 in one month and £1 pc r month afterwards, with £1 is costs.