PRISON FOR DEBT

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 79, 30 September 1924, Page 11

PRISON FOR DEBT

POWERS OF A MAGISTRATE DEBTOR MUST PROVE INABILITY TO PAY. The interesting- question was raised before his Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, in the Supreme Court last week, as to a Magistrate's jurisdiction to order' imprisonment for non-payment 'oi a debt. The point j discussed was whether a man might be imprisoned for non-payment' of a debt,[if he had had, since the judgment, suf- . ficient means and ability to pay the debt, but had not received, since the date oS the judgment, sufficient cash, over and above the amount required for the reasonable maintenance of himself and'his family. The matter was raised in the form of .an application by Douglas Wright, of Hatuma, JHawkes Bay,- farmer, for a writ lof prohibition against Edward Bligh, a railway employee at Hatuma, and the Magistrate sitting at Wai pukurau;' Mr. P. Levi appeared in support ofthe application, and Mr. R. Kennedy appeared to oppose on behalf of the respondent Bhgh. Judgment had been given against the applicant for £101, and the applicant had later been summoned to appear at Waipukurau on a judgment summons. The Magistrate had then made an order oh that summons, for payment of the amount owed by the applicant, in default j three months' imprisonment. It was admitted at the hearing before the Magistrate that the applicant owned a motorbicycle valued at £80, and money owing to him amounted to £32, which amounted to_^ lore in value than the debt owed. The Imprisonment, for Debt Limitation Act provides that the Magistrate may order imprisonment where it is proved to his satisfaction the debtor hashad since the date of the judgment sumcienf means and ability to pay the sum recovered against him, but the Act further provides that the Magistrate shall not make an order if the debtor proves to his satisfaction that he has not had sufficient money or cash, after providiijg lor the reasonable maintenance of himself and his family* to pay the debt. . lne applicant contended that the Magistrate must have been held to have decided that tlio debtor had assets sufficient to reahse more than the debt, but that as no had not had sufficient money since tho judgment to pay the debt, the Magistrate could i not legally imprison him. lne respondent contended that the Magistrate had decided the applioant had failed to .prove to his satisfaction that he had not had sufficient money or cash to pay the debt. tW«,H °nour' in ?ivinS judgment, held that the onus was on the debtor to prove h°adTnt l afStT^'- B Batis£ic«on that ho Alt b A*t suffip'ent money to pay the thatSh iufr°-"l th 6 paper 9 ifc "'as clear w i, v J . Ma/'t t. rate was not so satisfied. He held that this question-was a question sequently, whether the Magistrate was « P m, Mr Wlti hlH his iu™ di°K°n and consequently whether, the Magistrate was right or wrong, the remedy was not StaftS' w& h>y o^ wLn istrate had acted m, excess of or beyond • 8 He accordingly y°lis™t»f:%siT aP on with costs £5 5a