A JUDGMENT SUMMONS.

Gisborne Times, Volume VIII, Issue 534, 30 September 1902, Page 3

A JUDGMENT SUMMONS.

POV.'ER TO PUNISH DEBTORS

LIMITED.

By Tolegrapk—Press Association. Wellington, last night. 5 A judgmont givon to-day by tho Chiof Jaatico scema calculated to gcoatly limit the power to punish judgmont debtors who mako default. The case was one in which on May Bth Charlotto Burgoss obtained judgmont for £lO 4s Sd, wages duo, against Daniel Corouno. Next day Coronno obtained a loan by mortgaging his plant, and on May 23rd Charlotto Burgess issued a judgment summons against Coronno for tho amount of the previous judgment. Hearing took place on June 24th, tho Magistrate making an ordor against debtor for committal to 1 prison in default of payment. Counsel for dobtor now moved in the Supreme Court for an ordor of prohibition in respect of execution of the judgmont ordor, on tho ground that tho absonce of proof that dobtor had moans at the time of hearing of tho summons deprived tho Magistrate of jurisdiction to mako a'committal order. His Honor said in making tho order the Magistrate held that it had boon proved that tho defondant -had money of his own which ho had rofusod to pay to judgment oreditor,” but tho latter provisions of sub-Seotion five of Section eight of tho Act of 1874 had boon repoaled by tho 1900 Act, consequently thero is only left tho case where debtor has not had money of his own which ho has rofusod to pay. In this caso the only evidence is that on May 9th ho had money and did not then pay. Such proof doos not authorise the committal of a debtor to prison. It would no doubt kavo authorised committal under tho 1875 Act. Tho Magistrate has apparently read “has” as applicable to tho period subsequent to judgmont, but prior to the issue or hearing of tho judgmont summons. In my opinion, it cannot be so read. Tbore is, therefore, no evidence that at tho time of tho hearing judgment dobtor had thon any money in his possession ; henco no authority to issue an ordor of imprisonment. This construction will no doubt limit tho power to punish for not paying jbts due, but that seems to have been the mtention of the Legislature. Prohibition is therefore granted, with £5 5s costs and disbursements.