JUDGMENT CREDITORS

Taranaki Daily News, 2 September 1927, Page 9

JUDGMENT CREDITORS

SUGGESTIONS FOR RELIEF STERNER TREATMENT OIF DEBTORS CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE ACT. Alleging that under present practices judgment creditors have the thin end of the stick in their battle with judgment debtors, the Hastings Chamber of Commerce is circularising other chambers of commerce throughout the Dominion, asking them to give consideration to proposals for the relief of creditors. The circular was considered by the Taranaki Chamber last night, and referred to the legislation committee of the chamber for a report. The circular states that the directors of the Hawke’s Bay Creditors’ Association have asked for an investigation of the question of a revision of the existing law* appertaining to judgment summonses, and the following suggestions were set out for the Taranaki Chamber’s consideration:—(l) That the judgment debtor be required to file in the Magistrate’s Court, at least seven days before the date of hearing, a detailed statement of his earnings and his expenditure since the date of the judgment, outlining the subject matter of judgment summons.

The reasons for the foregoing amendment, says the circular, are that at present the debtor appears and makes certain verbal statements as evidence on oath as to his earnings and expenditure. The judgment creditor is not aware whether the judgment debtor is intending to appear or not, and moreover, in many eases has no means of ascertaining the sources of income nor the measure of expenditure of tfie debtor, with a view to obtaining confirmatory or other evidence relative thereto. The suggested statement would furnish the necessary particulars, enabling the creditor before the day of hearing to ascertain if the figures supplied were correct or not, and so enable him to obtain and have evidence in rebuttal forthcoming at the date of hearing. (2) Further to the first suggestion—that the evidence adduced by the creditor should be admissible by the filing of declaration of affidavit.

The reason for this, says the circular, is that in summonses where the amount is small, the creditor would be put to the cost of witnesses’ expenses, and might not even then succeed in obtaining an order. Moreover, it is a difficult matter to ask an employer or other disinterested party to be present in cases of this kind, and the practical difficulty to-day exists in that the debtor’s statement is invariably accepted in the first instance. Then inquiry is made and if that evidence is found to be incorrect, further proceedings have to be taken, and the necessary evidence obtained by the creditor, whereupon the debtor, being taxed with his former incorrect statement, probably admits his previous falsehood, and the witnesses are therefore uselessly present, No expenses are granted by the court, and the creditor is put to an unnecessary amount of trouble and expense. (3) That judgment summons orders should last, say, two years, instead of one year, as at present. It often happens that the court makes an order for payment at the rate of, say, 5s per week, for considerable sums, and it is a common occurrence that the order made is such that it is impossible to receive the whole of the debt back within the 12 months, and consequently fresh proceedings have to be taken and at the end of that period. (4) That the number of rehearings applied for by the judgment debtor should be limited. A recent case occurred where the judgment debtor had made three applications for rehearing, with the result that the magistrate informed him that he would not grant any more rehearings, this particular case being obviously an abuse of process. (5) That upon an application for rehearing a judgment creditor should be permitted to traverse the period from the date of hearing, and not merely from the date of the making of the previous order. «s is the present practice.