Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


Air Justice Hood, at Alelbourne, recently dealt with a curious point under the Imprisonment of 1* raudutent Debtors Act. A woman obtained from justices an order against her husband for payment of money, She afterwards secured from the justices an older under tho Imprisonment ot rraudulont Debtors Act for payment of the amount by instalments, with an order for imprisonment in default ot payment. Tho husband appealed to tho Court of General Sessions, which confirmed the order. It was stated in the General Sessions that the judgment creditor was the wife of tho judgment debtor, but no objection was taken to the power of the Court to confirm the order. The husband now asked the Supremo Court for an order to prohibit the chairman of General Sessions from giving effect to his order, ou the ground that in law a wife is not competent to obtain nn order of this kind against her husband. Argument m support of this proposition was advanced, but, unfortunately, from the legal point of view, the point was not decided, but was left severely alone. Air Justice Hood refused tho prohibition for several reasons. One was that an order under the Imprisonment of Fraudulent Debtors Act is merely a mode of execution —a means of getting satisfaction of tho original order for payment. Hence tho Supremo Court could not interfere with tho process of execution so long as the original order stood. Then His Honor held that prohibition will not he granted where any other remedy exists. It is a discretionary remedy, designed to prevent injustice, which must otherwise necessarily occur. Now, the husband might in tho General Sessions have insisted on tho objection, and have secured a ruling on the main point by means of a case stated. He did not do this, and so lost his chance. His Honor further said that tho rule nisi was wrong in form, because it was directed to the chairman of tho Court, and not to the Court, itself. Thus the husband, whether he was right in his main contention or not, could not have his position cleared > up in the Supremo Court on a prohibition application.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

HUSBAND AND WIFE, Issue 15662, 28 November 1914

Word Count

HUSBAND AND WIFE Issue 15662, 28 November 1914

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.