PROTECTING DEBTORS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 66, 18 March 1915, Page 7

PROTECTING DEBTORS.

WRONG USE OF THE LAW. TOO MANY ADJOURNMENTS. Several times recently. Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., has commented strongly upon the practice of issuing judgment summonses against debtors, and then ( getting the eases adjourned time after I time. The matter was again referred to this morning, when a sixth adjournment was wanted in a case against a judgment debtor. Mr. Kettle said: "There have already been five adjournments." The solicitor explained that the debtor was gradually paying off the amount. "Yes! -, replied Mr. Kettle '"but the adjournment fees are piling up all the time._ Jt is an abuse of the Court to issue these summonses and then get cases adjourned from time to time. I will read you a decision upon this question of adjournments. The magistrates have conferred upon the matter and have come to the conclusion that these frequent adjournments are oppressive to debtors. In some of these cases the adjournment fee? come to more than the debts. The magistrates have agreed that no sine die adjournments shall dp made in these cases. All adjournments in the future must bo made to a certain fixed date in these cases. The decision arrived at by the magistrates after conference is thus given by Mr. George Cruiekshank. S.M.: —It will be seen there is no specific power to adjourn the hearing. I'sinp- the ordinary powers of adjournment given by the Magistrate's Court Act, an adjournment should be granted only in the following cases: (1) When the hearing cannot fairly proceed, owing to the absence of either the debtor, the creditor, or some material witness, caused by illness, accident, or other reasonable cause. (2) Alter the Court is satisfied an order should be made, the proceedings may be adjourned to give the debtor a Breathing time wherein to obtain money. An adjournment should be made to a certain fixed date, and in no instance should the hearing be adjourned sine die. Adjourning the hearing from month to month, and thus holding the proceedings over the head of a struggling debtor, and so extracting driblets from him through fear of facing the magistrate, is making the Court an engine of oppression and extortion, and should not be tolerated.'"