POWERS OF MAGISTRATE.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIV, Issue 252, 2 October 1924, Page 7

POWERS OF MAGISTRATE.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. AN INTERESTED POINT SETTLED. The interesting question was raised before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout; as to a Magistrate’s jurisdiction to order imprisonment for non-payment of a debt. The point discussed was whether a man might be imprisoned for noDrP a y men t of a debt if he had had since the judgment sufficient means and ability to pay the debt, but had not received since the date of judgment Sufficient cash over unC above the amount required for the reasonable maintenence of himself and his family. The matter was raised in the form of an application by Douglas Wright, of Hatuma, Hawke’s Bay, farmer, for a writ of prohibition against Edward B’ligh, railway employee, Hatuma, and the Stipendiary Magistrate sitting at Waipukurau. Mr P. Levi appeared in support of the application and Mr R. Kennedy nppared to oppose on 1 behalf of the celt appeared that judgment had been against the plaintiff for £lOl, and the plaintiff had later been suin mcned to appear at Waipukurau on a Judgment summons. The magistrate had then made an order on the summons for payment of the amount owed by the plaintiff, in default three months’ imprisonment It was admitted at the hearing before the magistrate that the plaintiff owned a motor-bicycle valued at £BO and money owing to him amounting to £32. which amounted to more 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 has had since the date of the judg ment sufficient means and ability to pay the sum recovered against him, but the Act further provides that the magistrate shall not make an oraer if the debtor proved to his satisfaction that he had not sufficient money or cash after providing for the reasonable maintenance of himself and his family to pay the debt. The plaintiff contended that the magistrate must have been held to have decided that the debtor had assets sufficient to realise more than the debt, but that as he had not had sufficient money since the judgment to pay the debt, the magistrate could not legally imprison himThe defendant contended that the magistrate had decided the plaintiff had failed to prove to his satisfaction that he had not had sufficient money or cash to pay the debt. ' His Honour, in giving judgment, held that the onus was on the debtor to prove to the magistrate’s satisfaction that he had not had sufficient money to pay tho debt, and from the papers it was clear that the magistrate, was not so satisfied. He held that his question was for the magistrate to decide and within his jurisdiction, and consequently whether the magistrate was right or wrong tho remedy was not prohibition, which lay only when a magistrate had acted in execess of or beyond his jurisdication. He accordingly dismissed the application, with costs £5 5s to the defendant. —“N.Z. Times.”