|
[imprisonment for debt - insolvency, sham plea]
In
re Bent
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Stephen J., 23 November 1840
Source: Sydney Herald, 24 November
1840
Mr. A. Bent, who had been
incarcerated on account of the non-payment of a bill of which he
was the indorser, and from the proceeds of which he had received
no benefit, applied for his discharge on the ground that he had
no real or personal estate, having filed a schedule containing a
true statement of his affairs; he was opposed by his incarcerating
creditor, named Malcolm, principally on the ground that when the
action for the recovery of the value of the bill referred to was
brought, the insolvent filed a sham plea, by which he was put to
unnecessary expense. The insolvent swore that this plea had been
put on the file in order to enable the party who had the proceeds
of the bill to retire it; that individual being a member of the
insolvent’s family. The insolvent also deposed, that he had made
every exertion in his power to secure the plaintiff, by sending
him early information of the arrival of some cedar forwarded to
Sydney for sale by the party who had previously received the proceeds
of the bill.
His Honor was sorry that
under all the circumstances of the case, the fact of filing a sham
plea had been brought under his notice in Court; he did not think
that the insolvent had filed it with any culpable intention, but
still he was determined to stop this loop hole, and prevent any
debtor from temporising with his creditor, although, in his view
of the case, the manner in which this insolvent was pursued by his
creditor appeared to be strict, if not severe and harsh. Yet he
could not, even in such favorable circumstances, avoid showing the
displeasure of the Court at the filing of sham pleas, and if the
opposing creditor insisted he must remand the insolvent, at the
same time he did think that the latter had given a fair and honest
account of his affairs, and but for the filing of the sham plea
would have been entitled to his discharge.
Mr. Yarnton, for the insolvent,
submitted to his Honor, that the plea was filed before the present
insolvent act was in force, and which act gives the court the power
of punishing for so doing, and therefore it would be an hardship
on the insolvent to be punished, and he trusted that the shortest
term of imprisonment would meet the just of this case.
His Honor said he did not
mean to say tha[t] any offence was attributable to the present insolvent,
but, as the court was determined to check the filing of sham pleas,
he should take every means in his power of convincing all who came
before him of their inutility; as it was quite enough for creditors
to lose their principal, without being also subjected to unnecessary
expenses. His Honor also stated, that by the law of England, every
debtor when placed in custody for debt, was liable to be detained
until that debt was liquidated; but the law had lately been ameliorated
so far, that, if a fair surrender was made, and no vexatious proceedings
had taken place before that surrender, then the insolvent might
be discharged.
Mr. Poignand stated that
if his Honor was convinced that a fair surrender had been made in
the present case, he had no wish to press the matter farther than
to secure his client’s interests.
His Honor thought the disclosure
had been truly and fairly made, and as far as that went set the
matter at rest; as to the filing of the sham plea, he should take
time to consider of it - and then ordered the insolvent to retire
from the box. He was afterwards called up and informed, that as
the detaining creditor did not carry out his opposition, he was
discharged; but had he pressed the filing of the sham plea against
him or even given evidence of its being on the record, he should
have felt bound to punish him; as it was, he felt happy on account
of the number of children who were dependent on the insolvent for
subsistence, as well as from what he knew of Mr. Bent’s character,
to be enabled to discharge him.
|