DESCRIBED AS A SCANDAL

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 59, Issue 53, 3 April 1930, Page 8

DESCRIBED AS A SCANDAL

OUESTION OF NEW ZEALAND ^ LAW. IMPRI80NMENT FOR DEBT. INTERESTING POINT RAISED. At last week's sitting of the Magislate's Court in Hastings, an appliration was made for the issue of a second order for imprisonment on a judgment summons, the first order for imprisonment not havmg been acted upon. Mr A. M. Mowlem, S.M., questioned whetlier he had the power to make this order, and c-ounsel concerned promised to look into the legal position nnd bring it before His Worship yesterday. It will be remembered that dunng that argument His Worship expressed very pronouuced views that there was something wrong with the law wlien it allowed amounts to increase as it did. He instanced a case where in the original judgment summons the amount sued for was £3, but this amount had grown to £13. Another case was where a debtor had been sued for £2 in the first instance, had actually paid £3 and then gone to gao] because he would not pay a further £4 2s 6d. His Worship pointed out that on an original claini for say £4 a man could be sent io gaol for four days, but wlien this amount grew to £14, the default would be 14 days. He admitted that often, conduct money was paid by the creditor, this lielping to increase the amount of the claim. Mr H. Holderness pointed out that the whoie point at issue was whether a judgment summons order having been made and expired without the imprisonment clause having been acted on, a second order could he issued for the same debt. Tt was a question of English and New Zealand law, and Mr Holderness quoted lengthy legal argument on the whole matter, contendmg that a second order for imprisonment could be inflicted, provided, of course, the first. order for imprisonment had not been acted upon. He suggested that a definite ruling on the point would be welcomed. His' Worship intimated that he miglit rule in such a way as to induce Mr -Holderness to seek a Supreme Court judge's opinion, hut after hearing the legal points raised he promised to give an opinion at a later date.