TRANSFER SIGNED

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 19883, 9 March 1939, Page 6

TRANSFER SIGNED

HALL ESTATE LANDS

DEFENDANT IN CUSTODY

UNUSUAL PROCEDURE

Unusual processes were invoked to-day by counsel for the Guardian Trust Executors Company, Limited, as administrators in the estate of Fred Hall, deceased, to secure execution of a transfer of lands from Frederick T. Hall, in pursuance of an order for a writ of attachment made by Mr. Justice Northcrol't yesterday in the Supreme Court. The defendant, Frederick T. Hall, was arrested by order of the court and appeared in custody before His Honour, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of court.

Mr. ,1. G. Nolan appearing for the Guardian Trust, stated that the court yesterday had granted an order for the issue of a writ of attachment. This morning the defendant had been asked to sign the transfer in execution of the award of the court, and his reply was that he would not do so then, but would let counsel know this afternoon. The matter was urgent, as counsel knew His Honour had business awaiting his attention in Napier. The defendant, continued Mr. Nolan did not appear to grasp the seriousness of his position. The laft thing the plaintiff company wanted was the incarceration of the defendant, but it felt that the court’s order must be carried out.

Defendant’s Contumacy

His Honour remarked that orders having been made by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, and as an attachment order also had been made, the defendant was being contumacious in refusing to comply. Mi*. W. D. Lysnar, for the defendant, asked His Honour to consider the position of Flail in regard to the Adjustment Commission, but His Honour commented that he had, with considerable patience, heard Mr. Lysnar yesterday on that point. Counsel said His Honour, had asked him to accept the view that the Appeal Court had dealt with a matter that it was not entitled to deal with. The Supreme Court had ordered Hall to do certain things, and the Court of Appeal had affirmed that order. Mr. Lysnar now claimed that neither court had acted within its jurisdiction in respect of the order. He held that both courts had done something which they had no right to do.

Mr. ’Lysnar asked His Flonour to hear the clause in the Mortgagors and Lessees’ Rehabilitation Act on which he -based his argument, and His Honour replied that already he had heard it, but could hear it again. The section read by Mr. Lysnar was to the effect that it was not lawful for any person whatsoever to “issue or proceed with any process of execution in pursuance of any judgment, decree or order of any court if the judgment, decree or order was obtained in respect of an adjustable debt, or in respect of a debt secured by hn adjustable security, or if the property affected by the process of execution is subiect tb an adjustable security, or is' comprised in an adjustable lease."

Signed AVitSout Prejudice

The Court of Appeal had not had its attention drawn to the effect of this statute, in the hearing of the appeal, said Mr. Lysnar, who contended that while it was competent perhaps for a party to proceed tb judgment, in a case affecting an adjustable security, the issue of execution was barred by the Mortgagors and Lessees’ Rehabilitation Act. That clause must be respected by any court, counsel contended. Mr. Lysnar then intimated to His Honour that if the court ordered that the transfer should be signed, he would advise his client to comply. His Honour remarked that Mr. Lysnar had taken a proper attitude in that respect. He added that he intended to direct Mr. Lysrvar’s client to sign the transfer, and that if he complied, it would show repentance for the contempt of .court of which he had been guilty, .and the committal would only be until the rising of the court. After a short adjournment for the oroduefcion of documents, the signature of the defendant was appended to the transfer, Mr. Lysnar asking His Honour to note that this was done in obedience .to the court and without prejudice to the defendant’s rights under the Mortgagors’ ■ Rehabilitation Act.

His Honour, addressing Hall, reminded him that at the moment lie was in custody, having been brought before the court for wilfully disobeying its order, a disobedience which Hid rendered him liable to committal ‘o prison. He had now, belatedly but

“cnsibly, decided to obey the court, ’l’d he would be delivered from custody. Fie should clearly understand, however, 'that he had been in custody, and in peril of being committed to orison.