ATTACHMENT ORDERS.

Waikato Times, Volume 112, Issue 18809, 3 December 1932, Page 3

ATTACHMENT ORDERS.

DEBTORS VOICE OPPOSITION. IMPECUNIOSITY NO DEFENCE. Opposition to the payment of moneys out of court under attachment orders on dairy company cheques was made by two debtors in the Hamilton Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon. N. Kinn pleaded for a chance to state his position. He had a wife and two children, he said, and was hard up against it financially. His Worship (Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M.) explained that even were it the only money defendant had, he (the magistrate) was bound to make the attachment. Mere impecuniosity did not constitute grounds for the quashing of an attachment. “If this money goes I do not know what I am going to do,” defendant further pleaded, adding that lie was prepared to pay any spare shillings ho possessed in settlement of the debt. Ills wife and children had to live. Tlie only tiling to do, His Worship advised defendant, was to obtain an advance from his dairy company. Another Case. A similar protest was voiced by F. C. Boakes, through counsel (Mr F. A. de la Mare). “This man is having taken from him tlie few pounds which should keep His wife and family,” counsel said. The attachment of this money might mean that his client would be driven off his farm. * His Worship commented that there was an impression that money could not tie attached under these circumstances. This arose from the fact that when judgment summonses were taken out and dismissed the magisthate was satisfied that the debtor had had no money with which to pay the dtbt since the date of the order. An order under a judgment summons was I an order for payment, in default i term of imprisonment for contempt of the order of ihe court, but an attachment order was quite different. It was the levying on a man’s property in settlement, of a debt. The fact that a debtor was impecunious, and this money was the only asset he had, was no reason why the creditor should not be paid. Mis Worship advised Boakes lo go lo his dairy company for assistance. Counsel pointed out that his client would probably have, to walk off his farm, as he was unable to make it pay. "Well if he cannot make his farm pay there is probably someone else who can," Mr Wilson said.