FINANCIAL BURDENS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 85, 11 April 1931, Page 18

FINANCIAL BURDENS.

MORTGAGORS RELIEF BILL. PROTECTION OF TENANTS. HIRE-PURCHASE AGREEMENTS. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Friday. The debate on the second reading of the Mortgagors Relief Bill was continued in the House of Representatives to-day. The bill was read a second time and in the evening the House went into Committee on the bill. Replying to members, Mr. Forbes said he would bring down amended provisions in regard to chattel securities in order to meet the objections raised. It was also intended to increase the jurisdiction of magistrates to apply to principal moneys up to £1000. It was felt the Supreme Court was a better Court to deal with mortgages, as it was the highest authority possible. The amendments to the bill were introduced by Governor-General's Message. Landlords and Bailiffs. Mr. P. Fraser . (Labour, Wellington Central) asked whether the amendments made any provision relating to cases of distress'for rent. He said instances were becoming common where the owner of a house, without an order from the Court, simply served notice on tenants for payment of arrears, and if payment was impossible because of unemployment or some similar reason, the owner thereupon proceeded to send in a bailiff with instructions to evict and sell up the furniture. Mr. Fraser's statement was corroborated by Mr. M. J. Savage (Labour, Auckland West) and Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Ckristchurch East), who said if it was not possible to deal .with the matter under the bill before the House, it should be possible to-meet the position by making it necessary for the landlord to obtain an order of the Court before taking such a drastic action. Mr. Forbes said it was true the question raised by Mr. Fraser did not come within the scope of the bill, but he would be pleased to look into it. He agreed that while a landlord waa entitled to protection, it was, at a time like the present, important to see that his powers under the law were not exercised harshly. Time Payments. • Messrs. W. Nash (Labour, Hutt) and D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon) asked whether the provisions of the bill would be extended to apply to hire-purchase agreements. They said that as a result of reduced earnings many conscientious purchasers were placed in a difficult position, and if they were granted relief in the direction of a readjustment of payments or an extension of time, considerable hardship would be avoided.

Mr. Forbes °said he would look into the and if desirable he would arrange for the amendment to be inserted in the Legislative Council. The short title clause was passed with the amendment providing that the Act should be deemed to have come into force on March 18. There was a good deal of discussion on the hew clause relating to the extent of notice which mortgagees are required to give before foreclosing. Rights of Mortgagees. The Prime Minister said members had referred to the danger to the mortgagee if as much as one month's notice was required in the case of foreclosing mortgages with respect to chattels. The new; clause gave the mortgagee the right to apply to the Registrar of the Supreme Court for the right to fix a shorter period of notice. Members suggested the clause as drafted was too far-reaching. They contended it would be preferable to provide cleaTly for one month's notice in the case of mortgages on property, with a shorter period, say, a week or a fortnight, in the case of mortgages on chattel securities. lie Prime Minister agreed to; withhold the new clause in the meantime with a view to reconsidering the position, and providing for the insertion later of whatever amendment was desirable. was reported at midnight, - when the House rose until 2.30 p.m. on Monday.