Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6726, 17 July 1893, Page 2

Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING

GISBORNE, MONDAY, JULY 17, 1893. DEBTOR AND CREDITOR. After testing the opinion of members of the House and tho Government, Mr Geo Fisher decided not to proceed with hia Bill for the prevention of the recovery of small debts by process of law. The measure only contained two clauses. The first merely gave the title, and the second wa. that no retail tradesman shall recove against any person any debt or demand not exceeding LlO on account of any goods supplied to such person or upon his credit. Though the measure was limited in its scope, it would have embraced most of the debts now sued for in the Courts. To deny to a workman legal process would be ■a gross hardship. He must sell his labor on trust, or remain unemployed. The case ia different with the trader. He is not compelled to give credit to a doubtful mark, and he should be made to take the full responsibilities of his errors of judg ment. Everyone recognises that the credit system in this colony is abused to a fearful extent. Anything that would curtail it must prove a gain all round. Only very strong reasons should justify the State in assuming the position of debi collector, but such reasons are absent in the case of the retailer. Trade would undoubtedly be more sound if less credit were given, and a great deal of money would be saved in law costs. The publichouse business is, generally speaking, one of the most profitable in the country, yet the publican has no remedy at law for the recovery of a grog score His business is not ruined through the State not being his debt collector. However, Mr Fisher's Bill was too short. We think that it should have been left open to the retailer to recover for debts contracted by misrepresentation. If a debtor stated that he was possessed of property ho did not possess or over-stated hia income, he should be made to pay or go to gaol. He had been guilty of fraud, and should be punished. But in cases where a trader is fully aware of the position of the person to whom he gives credit, the law should not step in. This brings up the subject of imprisonment for debt, the law on which is on a most unjust footing in this colony. Wheu the late Judge Gilliea was a member of the House of Representatives, he strove to get a law abolishing imprisonment for debt, and at last succeeded in having placed on the statute book a measure which was supposed to effect his object. In practical working, the Act has proved abortive. Imprisonment for debt is as much the law of New Zealand as ever it was. The mode of procedure only haß been altered No defaulting debtor, unless he is an absolute pauper or living on the charity or bounty of his friends, is free from imprisonment. All that has to be proved is that the defendant had means since the first order of the Court was made to justify the Mneii trate, as the law is interpreted, in sending the debtor to gaol. The money he may have handled may not have been sufficient to have provided himself and family with the bare necessaries of life, but that does not matter. The claim must be paid under forfeiture of liberty. The debtor must either plunge further into debt, or allow his wif.j and children to starve The working of the law is cruel and illogical. In Victoria, before n man can be imprisoned for debt it must be proved that he has sufficient means beyond the cost of living ; in fact, that he can, but will not pay. Ho is imprisoned for fraud. In New Zealand, th« imprisonment is for " contempt of Court," which is only a thin disguise for the actual thing — non-payment of the debt. The law is practically the same in England as in this colony, but in Scotland imprisonment for debt has been abolished except in cases where a man refuses to obey an order of the Court to support his wife and family. The Scotch law on this subject might be advantageously adopted in this colony.