COURT OF APPEAL

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 11128, 30 July 1907, Page 1

COURT OF APPEAL

ARBITRATION COURT FINES. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, last night. In the Court of Appeal, m the case of W. Heddie v. Millar, Mr Bell contended that as a general rule a fine was recover- \ able, m tine civil jurisdiction of a court. Although the process of recovering a fine •under section 101 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1905, was through-the civil jurisdiction of a court, the fine was etill a penalty, not a debt. Thie penalty was an exception to section 4 of the Imprisonment for Debt. Abolition Act, 1874, and as imprisonment for' non-payment had not been abolished:, a writ ol attachment could issue. He further contended that tliis was a debt to tihe Crown and therefore the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act, 1874, dd not apply, and respondent was attachable for non-payment.. Mr Stout also addressed the Court. * Mr Raymond, for respondent, . argued that the only remedy of appellant was that of a judgment creditor for recovery of a judgment debt ; tliat commitment under the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act is not a process for enforcing pay- i ment ; that* payment of a penalty is not : enforceable 'by attachment; that the fine i inflicted on respondent was not within. | the words of rule 386 of the code of civil ■ procedure, whioh conferred on the Court i the power to **ssue a writ of attachment. The ' Court was left sitting. ■