MORTGAGORS RELIEF BILL.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18849, 11 April 1931, Page 7

MORTGAGORS RELIEF BILL.

SECOND READING CARRIED. Bjr Telegraph—Press Vwjociatlon WELLINGTON. April 10. In the House of Representatives this afternoon, after Ministers had replied to a number of questions, the debate on the second reading of the Mortgagors Relief Bill was continued. The Hon. J. G. Cobbc said that statements had been made in the House that Australian Banks were calling up overdrafts and sending money to Australia to the detriment of the Dominion. Loose statements of this kind were most regrettable. The banks had acted in the most fair and reasonable manner, and if private mortgagees had exercised the same 1 fairness there would have been no need to introduce the Bill. The announcement of the Bill had given a ray of hope to a large number of farmers who had considered themselves ruined. Mr H. G. Dickie -Patea> said it was unfortunate thai some such legislation had not been enacted earlier, because good farmers had already been forced off the land. Mr W. E. Purrv (Auckland) ad- • vocated the removal of the necessity for mortgagors to undertake the cost j of instituting Court proceedings. Mr W. J. Poison (Stratford) em- J phasised the necessity for the measure, and added that once its purpose had been served, Parliament should endeavour to ensure that there would be no recurrence of the position existing to-day. The Government should strengthen the rural credit system, and place it on such a footing that it would > be able to operate beneflciall}' both in good times and bad The Hon. P. A. de la Perrelle said 1 he thought it possible that the Prime Minister would see his way to increase the extent of jurisdiction of Magis- j trates, so that they would be able to 1 consider cases where principal moneys j ■were somewhat greater than the limit | at present fixed by the Bill. The debate was continued by a number of members. The Prime Minister, in reply, said some amendments to the Bill w-ould be ( submitted later. The Bill was read a second time. j Bill in Committee. The Committee stage of the Bill was | commenced during the evening session. Replying to a number of members, j Mr Forbes said he would bring down j amended provisions in regard to j chattel securities, in order to meet j objections raised. It also was intend- ; ed to increase tke jurisdiction of I Magistrates to apply to principal I moneys up to £IOOO. It was felt that the Supreme Court was a better Court to deal with mortgages, as it was the 1 highest authority possible. Amendments to the Bill were in- , troduced by Governor-General’s message. Mr P. Fraser (Wellington) asked whether the amendments made any ] provision relating to cases of distress j for rent. He said instances were be- j coming common where the owner of a : house, without an order from the Court, simply served notice on the ! tenants for payment of arrears, and if I payment was impossible owing to unemployment or some similar reason, the owner thereupon proceeded to send 1 in a bailiff with instructions to sell . up the furniture. Mr Fraser’s statement was corroborated by Mr M. J. Savage and Mr I H. T. Armstrong, who said that if it was not possible to deal with the matter under the Bill before the House, it should be possible to meet the position by making it necessary for a landlord to obtain an order of the Court before taking such drastic action. Mr Forbes said it was true the question raised by Mr Fraser did not come within the scope of the Mortgagors Relief Bill, but he would be pleased to look into\it- He agreed that whilst a landlord was entitled to protection, it was at a time like the present important to see that his powers under the law were not exercised harshly. Mr W. Nash and Mr D. G. Sullivan asked whether the provisions of the Bill would be extended to enable them to apply to hire purchase agreements. They pointed out that as a result of reduced earnings, many conscientious purchasers were placed in a difficult position, and if they were granted relief In the direction of readjustment of payments or extension of time, a considerable amount of hardship would be avoided. Mr Forbes said he would look into the matter, and if desirable he would arrange for an amendment to be inserted in the Legislative Council. The short title clause was passed with the amendment in accordance ! with the Governor-General’s message, providing that the Act should be | deemed to have come into force on eighteenth March. There was a good deal of discussion ! on a new clause, similarly introduced, relating to the extent of notice which 1 1 mortgagees were required to give be- j fore foreclosing. The Prime Minister said members had referred to the danger to a mortgagee involved, if as much as a month’s notice was required in case of foreclosing mortgages. With respect to chattels, the new clause gave a mortgagee the right to apply to a registrar of the Supreme Court for the right to fix a shorter period of notice. In the discussion that followed, members suggested that the clause as drafted was too far-reaching. They contended that it would be preferable for the Act to provide clearly for a month’s notice in the case of mortgages on property, ' with a shorter period, say a week or a fortnight, in the case of mortgages on chattel securities. The Prime Minister agreed to withhold the new clause in the meantime, with a view to reconsidering the position and providing for the insertion later of whatever amendment was desirable. Progress w’as reported at midnight, when the House rose till 2.30 on Monday. The Prime Minister stated that a Bill relating to railway management would be brought down on Monday.