THE R.M. COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 7568, 20 May 1886, Page 3

THE R.M. COURT

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Kindly allow me to correct a printer's error made in my letter published this morning. It should have read "Mr Fish's letter is most ■valuable testimony," etc., instead of "plausible" as printed.—-I am, &c, A Dunedin Merchant. Dunedin, l4th May.-

TO THE EDITOR. Sm, —Let me point out to your correspondents that in the case of North and Scoullar v. Milne, Me Carew's judgment proceeded upon thegrouud that the plaintiffs had failed to prove defendant's ability to pay, True, the question of travelling expenses cropped up, but that Was merely-an episode, and occurred iv answer to plaintiffs' contention that the onus of proving inability should be cast on defendant on the ground of his non-appearance. It appeared that defendant had, since the date of the judgment, received £20, but it remained to be proved by the plaintiffs, as they undertook to do when they applied for the summons, that he had had sufficient means to satisfy the judgment. I was in Oourt during the hearing of the case, and this was not done.

In the case quoted by Messrs Fish and Wilkinson, His Worship merely did what he was bound to do. Both your correspondents are J.P.s, and should know that any magistrate making an order for payment by instalments at that stage in the absence of the evidence required by Mr Carew, would be acting clean contrary to the law.

By way of comfort to Messrs North, Scoullar, and Wilkinson, I conclude this letter with the story of the troubles of another merchant, told in his own words: —

This is what happened to me, a poor unfortunate creditor, who for his sins obtained a judgment against a debtor in ths District Court (original gold-fields jurisdiction) for £300 at Queenstown. After the judgment was obtained the defendant removed himself, his Lares and Penates, to Waipori. Defendant not having satisfied: the judgment, I was advised to issue against him a judgment, summons which I now know as a summons under the " Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act, 1874," and this is my experience— £ s. d. On issuing the summons I was asked for and paid a fee of 3d. in the pound on £300 in pursuance of Regulations published in Government Gazette, 1875, folio 15 3 15 0 And also an additional fee as the sum exceeded £20 ... ... ... 0 3 0 I was then asked for and paid to the defendant conduct money for him to defray his expenses from Waipori to Queenstown and back again; mileage Is. per mile. ... 7 10 0 When the case came on for hearing I paid a fee of (3d. in the pound and I obtained an order of commitment. 7 10 0 £18 18 0 On applying for my order of commitment a fee of Is. 6d. in the pound was demanded (vide regulations above : mentioned) ... ... ... 22 10 0 And in addition to this, fees for the expenses of the constable and the defendant during conveying him to Gaol; mileage, &c. So I had paid £18 18s. for getting my order, and before I could put it in force I was asked to pay £22 10s. and also a further indefinite sum. I declined. I tore up my judgment and order, and as I thought it possible that the defendant was at least as honest as the Government, I lit my pipe with them."—l am, &c. Solicitor. May 18.

TO THE EDITOR. Sin, —The trading community has reason to be thankful to you for bringing-the matter of " Judgments in our R. M. Court" so directly before public opinion as has been done in your leader of to-day, and I trust good will come out of it. There is one point, however, I would direct attention to: it is that of small amounts. A summons is taken out against a debtor for, say £3. On the clay of hearing, debtor signs judgment, and'a period of some three weeks or more is given him to _ pay up, and then a judgment summons is issued. The debtor, who knows from general report of the " pernickettiness" of the Magistrate, puts in an appearance, knowing that the creditor would be unable to prove his being in work at that period of time—the case is heard and dismissed, although it may be that for a matter of 5s a week, or the alternative, the debtor (who could work if he chose) would pay rather than spend his time in gaol and earn nothing. It is in these small matters where the hardship of tradesmen comes in. It is of course different when one gives credit blindly to the amount of £20 or £30 and knows that his debtor could not afford to pay the large sum at once when summoned.

What we want is a Court where cases can be

tried as between man and man and then settled on their merits, and that where " a judgment summons" being taken out something should be done to compel debtors paying their just debts. I would be the last to advocate harsh

treatment of a debtor who is unable to pay his way; but I think a magistrate should be one who can have sufficient acumen to deal with matters as they affect the trading community, and not follow the law blindly.—l am, etc., Honest Teader. Dunedin, May 17.

TO THE EDITOR. Sin, —That there is a widespread feeling of dissatisfaction with the administration of the R.M. Court, with regard to judgment summonses at least, is proved by the number of letters which have appeared in your columns, and could be still more proved by any person desiring such, interviewing traders generally. In addition to cases already alluded to, let me mention two, the facts of which, out of many others within my knowledge, occur to me. Some time ago a person holding a permanent situation at a good salary was summoned on a judgment summons ;he admitted the above, and actually expressed his willingness in Court to pay 10s per week in satisfaction of the debt, which the plaintiff expressed himself satisfied with. One would liave thought that an order in such a case wonld have been made; but no! the Magistrate after asking some questions, said in his opinion the debtor could not afford it, and refused an order. In another case, a single man, with no encumbrance, in a constant billet, earning £1 per week above the amount required to pay board and lodging, was summoned. The night before the day upon which the case was to be heard, the debtor waited upon his creditor and said that he did not want

to lose a day's work by attending Court, but that he was willing to pay 10s per week if that would be accepted—which plaintiff agreed to. The next day the case came on. Under the Act, if a defendant does not appear without giving good reason, the magistrate is bound to make an order. In this case the plaintiff stated what bad occurred, and the R.M. put him into the box to make his statement on oath, which he incautiously did—whereupon the Magistrate refused to make an order. You will observe, if the plaintiff had made no statement he must have got an order. Because he desired to show unmistakably what the defendant was willing to do, he got none. Need I say that in both these cases the debts remain unsatisfied to the present day. Surely, sir, the trading public are entitled to a little more protection than this. Nor, I can assure you, are the above cases exceptional—dozens similar could be quoted. I have not seen the regulations made under the Act, but a careful perusal of the Act itself warrants mo in saying that the R.M. is not justified by it in his interpretation.—l am, &c, A Business Man.

Dunedin, May 17