APPEAL COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 60, 30 July 1907, Page 2

APPEAL COURT.

STRIKERS* LIABILITY TO IMPRISONMENT. Per Press Association. Wellington, July 20. The Appeal Court to-dny it hearing the ease Keddie v. ili.lar, an appeal irom Judge Williams' decision. Respondent was a slaughterman's assistant at Pareora Freezing Works, who was lined £5 for taking .>art ia the recent strike. A writ of attachment was moved for and refused by Mr Justice Willims on the ground that die mode of recovering the 'amount of the fine prescribed by the Legislature was the mode prescribed for the recovery of debt and not that of a penalty, consequently, since the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act had been passed no one could be imprisoned for failure to pay a debt. Mr Justice Cooper, in a previous case, had granted the writ of attachment, and the Appeal Court has to decide which view is correct. Mr H. 1). Bell, K.C., and Mr J. L. Stout are for appellant; Messrs Rayinond and A. L. Herman appear for respondent. Mr Bel! contended that, as a general rule, a fine was recoverable in the Civil jurisdiction of a court. Although the process of recovery of a fine'under seclion 101 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, lflo5 4 was through the civil jurisdiciion of tho Court, the fine was still a wnnlty, not a delft. This was a penalty. !ly virtue of the exemption of section 4 ef the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act, 1874, imprisonment for non-pay-ment had not been abolished and a writ if attachment could issue. He further contended this was a debt to the Crown, therefore the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act, 1874, did not apply, and respondent was attachable for non-pay-ment.

Mr Stout also addressed the Court, Mr. Raymond, for respondent, argued that the only remedy of appellant was that of judgment creditor for the recovery'of a judgment debt; that comi'litlment under the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act was not the. process of enforcing payment; that the payment of a penaltv is not enforceable by attachment; that the fine inflicted on respondent was not within the words of rule 38(1 of the code of civil procedure, which conferred on the. Court power to i-sue a writ of attachment.