THE RECOVERY OF SMALL DEBTS.

Evening Post, Volume LIV, Issue 21, 24 July 1897, Page 2

THE RECOVERY OF SMALL DEBTS.

SUGGESTED ALTERATIONS IN THE LAW. The Minister for Justice, (Mr. T. Thompson) was interviewed last evening by a deputation of the Workers' Union — consisting of Messrs. Rl Patten (President), J. Hague, A. Orr, J.Armstrong, audW. Blanchi field— in reference to the desireableness of altering the law relating to the recovery of small debts. Mr. Orr read a long statement embodying the views of the Union in reference to the recovery of small debts. It was to the effect that the present S3 r stem was a blot upon our democracy, and unjust alike to the debtor and the creditor. In a case heard in Wellington the claim was for £22 odd, and the expenses- amounted to £10 17s 3d. In another case the claim was 225, and the expenses 16s 6d. Another debt sued for amounted to. Is 6d, and the expenses were 6s. In each Case the claim was undefended. The Union desired that lawyers should not [ be allowed to appear in small debt cases. ' The people had reason to be proud of the manner in which the law was administered by the Stipendiary Magistrate of Wellington, but the Union wanted the law to be altered, and in that direction the Government could help. The Union believed that when the injustice was pointed but Ministers | would bring about an alteration in the prespnt system. The , Union suggested : — (1) That a Board of Conciliation should be set up to deal with small debt cases up to and including £20, and that when practicable the Stipendiary Magistrate should be made Chairman of the Court. (2) That only those persons directly interested should be permitted to be present during the hearing of any case, and that no lawyer should be allowed to take part in the proceedings. (3) That a second summons should hot be issued until the first judgment had been satisfied, except it had been approved by the Court of Conciliation, each succeeding case to be taken in priority of application. (4) That a case should only be reported in the press after the debtor had failed to comply with the order of the Court, or when I the Court might consider the cir-

cumstances and the decision of interest to the general public. (5) That the power given to landlords which virtually allows them to assume- the functions of magistrates should be abolished, and that arrears of rent should be sued for in the same way as butchers and other tradesmen were obliged to sue. (6) That a schedule of household requisites of the value of £20 should be prepared so as to exempt them from seieure. (7) That prior to the issue of any summons the plaintiff should, after having made demand and failed to get his money, present the account to the Court, which should then forward it to the debtor, together with a franked envelope, enclosing a printed form fora reply. The Union considered that the suggestions were in the interests of the creditors as well as of the debtors. Many a man who was willing to pay had his life badgered out of him by spiteful creditors, and some of them had lost their billets through the importunities of those to whom they owed money. On no account should the Court expenses in a case involving a claim of £5 exceed 2s, and in a case involving one of £10 they should not exceed 4s. The Union also suggested that, to avoid the harassment of employers and employe's by creditors, the Court should be empowered to approach employers with the* object of ascertaining the earnings of debtors, with a' view to arranging provision for payment ofaccounts on an equitable basis. The Minister, in reply, said the matters referred to were of considerable importance, and required very careful consideration. He would consider thej representations of the deputation, and bring the matter before the Cabinet, with his own views thereon. Speaking personally, he would say that he had long held that the Court was made too much like a debt-collecting machine. He said, that without fear of contradiction, and be thought that most people would agree with that view. He had been in business 28 years, and had only had two cases in Court. ' ■ Mr. Orr said there were about 600 lawyers in the colony, and Wellington had 77 of tbera. There were only 22 policemen in the city, and 77 lawyers seemed out of all proportion to the population. He did not want the Minister or the public to understand that the Union was anxious to get the law amended so as to enable it to get rid' of the' debts owing by the working men. The members of the Union wished to pay their way, but objected to the present system of recovery. , , ... The Minister pointed out that the lawyers in Wellington did a lot of business from outside, whereas the police stationed here were confined to city work. He would have no objection to the power given to landlords to distrain being taken away. He was a small landlord himself, but he had never distrained once in his life. Mr. Patten thought it would be a good thing if there was a legal bureau in each large town', as in some parts, of England, where legal advice could be obtained for a . nominal|sum. ! In the course of further conversation the ' Minister laughingly suggested , that the .members should keep away from all lawyers, , and explained ( that he had had very little to do with them. The interview then terminated.