Judgment Summons Case.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XVI, Issue 5579, 26 September 1889, Page 3

Judgment Summons Case.

+ At the R. M. Court this morning Messrs Tucker and Lucas, .J.P.'s, occupied the Bench. The case R. Little v. Willoughby Brassey, claim Llo 2s (»d on a judgment summons, was called on. Mr Chrisp appeared for plaintiil", and Mr Rees for defendant. Mr Chrisp in opening, pointed oufc that many times this case had been before the Court since judgment was obtained on ■Tune 20. The case had been adjourned over and over again on promises of payment, which were continually broken. Debtor was living in the best hotel, and was able to travel every week to Napier. Ho made no attempt whatever to pay the money, except a fortnight ago. Then the Chief Justice was in Gisborne, anfl when the case was called on, Brassey paid L 5 and got an adjournment. The amount was now reduced to LlO 2s (3d, and he would ask for an order of the Court. Mr Rees contended that no commitment order could issue for less than the total amount of this summons, Lls. — This objection was overruled. The Bench desired to be satisfied that since the date of judgment debtor had had LlO 2s fid. " Mr Chrisp called Willoughby Brassey. Debtor did not go into the box, but stated to the Court : I may say I have had the means to pay since this summons was taken out. Ido not desire to evade payment of the money, but could not pay if an order were issued for immediate payment. This morning I asked for an adjournment for a week, and I would see the money paid. lam sure Little would have granted the adjournment, if his solicitor had not disagreed. The Bench : That's very likely, clients often do silly things. On the application of Mr Chrisp, the Court waa about to enter up judgment for immediate payment,execution to be stayed for a fortnight. Mr Rees : Make it an adjournment fcr a fortnight — not an order. Mr Chrisp : Oh no ! Mr Rees then contended that the Bench could not make iui immediate order and stay execution. Though debtor stated he had had money since the date of judgment, a man would have to pay for his living, for the absolute necessities of Kfe for his family. Mr Rees also contended that the evidence must show that " since the date of judgment and before issue of the judgment summons " debtor had the means to pay. Mr Chrisp again called Brassey, who was sworn, and deposed that his means had been from £15 to £20. He had a gold watch worth £20 and a gold ring of which he had no idea as to the value— he was not a jeweller. They were presentations. Mr Chrisp stated the evidence was sufficient for an order. It was painful for him to continually press. Debtor : Painful to you ! What is it to me '? Mr Chrisp further asked for an order, and remarked " This is a farce." Mr Rees gaid it was more than a farce, and suggested a further adjournment. Capt. Tucker : Do you know, Mr Roes, how many adjournments there have been '. Judgment was given on June 2ii, the case came on again on July 11, July 25, Tidy 2b', August 22, August 29, September 12, September 19, and again to-day. Mr Rees argued that with regard to presents of jewellery, if they had been in his possession so long they would have belonged to his assignee. Capt. Tucker stated : We are both inclined to make the order, and feel sure that since the time of judgment he has had the means to pay. An order will be issued for immediate payment, execution to be stayed for a fortnight ; in default eleven days imprisonment in Gisborne gaol.