Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

8° Decembris, 1926.]

Sir FREDERICK LIDDELL, K.C.B., and Mr. H. J. COMYNS.

[Continued.

power to take and appropriate money or securities. This does not apply to property generally; it only applies to money or security for money?-Yes, and it must be property belonging to the person in receipt of relief.

316. Trust funds and property of that sort are dealt with separately hereafter? -Yes.

Lord Gorell.

317. This does not apply to chattels at all, does it?-(Mr. Comyns.) No. There is a case showing that a judgment obtained in an action for damages for personal injuries signed in favour of the plaintiff in the action whilst he is in receipt of relief from a Board of Guardians is a valuable security for money. That was the case of the West Ham Union against Ovens.

318. I think we should keep in the old section, for what it is worth? (Sir Frederick Liddell.) Leave it outstanding for what it is worth?

[blocks in formation]

322. So there it stands with really obsolete language, because the people who are to act are the overseers, on the warrant of the justices?—Yes.

Sir Malcolm Macnaghten.

323. Why could not the guardians apply under the Act? They have, first of all, to apply to the justices?-(Sir Frederick Liddell.) The guardians were not given this power and it was conferred on overseers. (Mr. Comyns.) Mr. Brook Little says: "It would seem that the duties of overseers under this Act were transferred to the guardians of unions by Section 38 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, which enacts that the relief of the poor shall be administered by boards of guardians," but this is not clear.

324. There is nothing in the Act of 1834 which provides that the Act of 1718 shall be read as if overseers were to be substituted?—(Sir Frederick Liddell.) There is no provision that all the Acts are to be read as if guardians were substituted for overseers.

Lord Gorell.

325. If it should be decided before we pass this Bill we may as well leave it?It will only probably be decided by justices. They will either say that they have this power or that they have not. It will not be a very satisfactory

decision.

Chairman.] Are you inclined to suggest that we leave it in the repeal schedule?

Lord Warrington.

326. Would it not be better to leave it in the schedule of repeals, with a note saying why it is left, being virtually repealed by the abolition of overseers? I think it would be better to have a note to that effect. Would the proper place be in the schedule against the Act of 1718? I think so.

Chairman.] Then we will reverse our decision and leave Section 1 of the Act of 1718 in the schedule of repeals, with a note.

Agreed.

Clause 43 is passed.

Clause 44 is passed.

8° Decembris, 1926.] Sir FREDERICK LIDDELL, K.C.B., and

Mr. H. J. COMYNS.

[Continued.

ON CLAUSE 45.

Sir Henry Slesser.

I

327. This raises a difficult point. recently had to decide it. Under the Wages Attachment (Abolition) Act, 1870, there is a general provision that no order for the attachment of wages to satisfy judgments shall be made. But the Act of 1834, Section 59, says that "justices may attach wages in the hands of the master," and so on, and the question is how far the Act of 1870 has overridden the provisions of Section 59 of the Act of 1834. I see the Note here says that the Act of 1870 applies only to Orders for the attachment of wages to satisfy a judgment of the Court. The Act of 1834 is dealing with orders, but I suppose it is said that that is dealing with orders following a judgment. That is the distinction. I should like you to consider whether that point is one of substance. It is difficult on the face of it to see.

One of the difficulties is that there is no reference at all in the Act of 1870 to the Act of 1834. That may be an argument that the Act of 1834 still stands. I could not find in the Act of 1870 any reference to the Act of 1834 at all? It is perfectly general.

Sir Henry Slesser.] Perhaps the Committee will look at the wording of the two Acts and see whether it is covered.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

331. The preamble recites: "Whereas by an Order in Council certain of the provisions of the Common Law Procedure Act were extended and applied to all the courts of record established under the provisions of the County Courts Act, 1846, and also to the City of London Courts of Record as constituted by the County Courts Act, 1867, and whereas much inconvenience has arisen by the attachment of wages to satisfy judgments in some of such first mentioned courts and it is expedient to prevent the attachment of wages to satisfy judgments recovered in any court of record or inferior court"?-Yes.

Sir Henry Slesser.] What I want to make clear is the provision as to satisfying judgments is not in the body of the Act, but only in the preamble. That is not quite clear.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

am

333. Under the Act of 1834-I treating the justices as an inferior court -they may make an order, and under that order the wages may be attached? -They do not use the word "attached " in the section itself. They use it in the marginal note, but not in the section.

Lord Warrington.] May one look at the section? It is Section 59 of the Act of 1834, which says: "It shall be lawful for any justice, upon the application of the overseers or guardians of the parish or union providing such relief, and upon proof of the same having been given to or on account of any such person, his wife or family as aforesaid" and so forth "to issue a summons requiring such person as well as the master or employer of such person, or some person on his behalf, to appear before any two justices, at a time and place to be named in such summons, to show cause why any wages

B

8° Decembris, 1926.] Sir FREDERICK LIDDELL, K.C.B., and

Mr. H. J. COMYNS.

[Continued.

due, or which may from time to time become due, from such master or employer, should not be paid over, in whole or in part, to such overseers or guardians, and if no sufficient cause be shown to the contrary, or if such person, or someone on his behalf, shall not appear on the return of such summons, then the said justices shall, by order under their hand, direct the master or employer for the time being from whom any wages shall be due or from time to time become due or payable to such poor person, to pay, either in one sum or by such weekly or other instalments as the said justices shall in their discretion think fit, taking into consideration the circumstances of such poor person and his family, out of such wages, to such overseers or guardians, the amount of such relief, or so much thereof as shall from time to time be due or unpaid " and then the payment is to be a good discharge. But there is all the difference in the world between a discretionary order such as that given by the justices and an order made by a judge of a court for the recovery of a private debt, because if a judge of a court is asked to issue execution he must do it and he has no discretion to say that only a part of the wages shall be applied; all he could do would be to attach the wages.

Sir Henry Slesser.] The side note of the section in the Act of 1834 says "Power to justices to attach wages."

Lord Warrington.

334. Yes, the word "attach" is in the side note, but when you look at it you will see it says that justices taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case may say that a man has been receiving relief during a certain period by way of loan and he is now competent out of his wages to pay so much a week in discharge of that, and he ought to be ordered to do it. It is not like an attachment of a civil debt by a judge of a civil court, who has no such discretion? -I asked the Ministry of Health to ascertain whether this procedure was a live procedure at the present day and they wrote to several clerks of guardians and most of them say that they have never heard of it being put in operation. But the relieving officer of the

Auckland Union says he has secured a number of orders under Section 59 of the Act of 1834 for attachment of wages for the recovery of relief by way of loan. The proceedings were based on the section and there was nothing in the nature of agreement. The first cases were in August, 1924, when 20 orders were obtained; there were six further cases in May, 1925, and another three cases are to be heard this week. Some orders obtained in August, 1924, were for as much as £1 a week, and the relieving officer estimates that up to the present time at least £300 has been recovered.

[blocks in formation]

8° Decembris, 1926.] Sir FREDERICK LIDDELL, K.C.B., and

Mr. H. J. COMYNS.

[Continued.

this Act are recoverable," we simply put in "recoverable summarily as a civil

debt."

340. Yes, we decided that, and we will ask you to put in the necessary words? Yes.

Mr. Hudson.

341. If you put in "recoverable summarily as a civil debt," you are bringing in the Act of 1870?-No. You can recover the sum payable under the order summarily as a civil debt. The Act of 1879 applies only if an order is made. "If any employer refuses or neglects to pay to the board of guardians producing any such order the money thereby directed to be paid according to the terms of the order, and at the periods thereby fixed, the same may be recovered summarily as a civil debt."

Chairman.] That would be all right, I

think.

Lord Warrington.] As a civil debt and not as a forfeiture.

Chairman.

342. That goes out?-Yes.

Clause 45 is passed as amended.

On CLAUSE 46.

Lord Warrington.] There is one point in this clause. sub-clause (5) contains this provision: "Nothing in this section shall affect section 17 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924." I had not that statute before me and I did not know what it meant.

Chairman.

343. I have the same query? If I might, I should like to bring this up after the luncheon interval. The Minister of Health wanted this put in as a saving. It is really to prevent their getting any of the National Health money from an approved society. I think that is the meaning of it. This is to prevent guardians getting money payable by approved societies under the National Health Insurance Act.

Chairman.] We will pass the clause, in the meantime.

Clause 46 is passed.

Clauses 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53 are passed.

60288

On CLAUSE 54.

Sir Frederick Liddell.] The clause brings the Act into line with the practice. Guardians do not stamp "workhouse" now on their goods, though they are required to do so by the Act.

Chairman.

344. They do not put the word "workhouse " on the pyjamas and other things?-No.

Lord Warrington.

345. It simply leaves it open to be branded by such marks as the board of guardians think proper?-Yes.

Clause 54 is passed.

On CLAUSE 55. Lord Warrington.

346. This assumes the duty to appoint guardians which appears, not in the Statutes, but in Orders?-Yes.

Clause 55 was passed.

On CLAUSE 56.

Sir Frederick Liddell.] The Note explains why the Act of 1790 is not reproduced.

Clause 56 is passed.

On CLAUSE 57.

Sir Frederick Liddell.] The original Act was limited to three specific cases; then the Act of 1876 extended it to any other case where the Ministry consented. This clause relates to the reception of outsiders in the workhouse.

Lord Warrington.

347. Then those three conditions have now been got rid of ?-Yes, in any case where the Minister consents. His consent was necessary in those three cases. There was not an absolute right in the three old cases.

348. But the Act of 1876 extended it to every case where it was thought expedient? Yes.

Clause 57 is passed. Clause 58 is passed.

B 2

8° Decembris, 1926.] Sir FREDERICK LIDDELL, K.C.B., and

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Mr. H. J. COMYNS.

349. " Spirituous liquor is in the Act of 1834; in the Bill you have the words intoxicating liquor "?-Yes "intoxicating liquor" is the usual expression in modern Acts.

66

350. Spirituous liquor" would not include beer, I suppose, or even wine?I do not know. (Mr. Comyns.) It was 'spirituous or fermented liquor" in the old Act.

66

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

[Continued.

that summary jurisdiction here may be exercised by a single justice of the peace? The Home Office would very much like that to be cut out.

Sir Malcolm Macnaghten.

358. About the single justice?—Yes.

Chairman.

359. But you could not do it, could you? No, it is the law, I am afraid. Chairman.] I think we had better leave the clause as it is.

Clause 59 is passed.

ON CLAUSE 60.

Lord Warrington.

66

[ocr errors]

360. Sub-clause (2) of this clause I am not quite sure about. It says: 'If the master or any other officer of a workhouse (a) introduces into the workhouse or sells, uses, lends, or gives away therein, or knowingly permits, or suffers to be introduced, or sold, used, lent or given away therein, any intoxicating liquor." Ought not the words except for the domestic use of himself or of any officer therein or of their respective families " be inserted in that sub-clause? In terms this makes him liable if he introduces into the workhouse intoxicating liquor for his own use?-"Contrary to the rules, orders and regulations made by the Minister."

361. My point is really a drafting point. If you have in the first subclause "if the master of a workhou e orders any intoxicating liquor to be introduced into the workhouse, except in conformity with any rules, orders or regulations made by the Minister," then Sub-clause (2) would correspond with that. But Sub-clause (1) contains the express exception of intoxicating liquor "for the domestic use of himself or of any officer thereof or their respective families, or except by and under the written authority of the Medical Officer of the workhouse or of a justice visiting the workhouse, or of the board of guardians."-Yes, following the existing

Act.

Lord Warrington.] Yes, that follows the Act, but ought not Sub-clause (2) to follow Sub-clause (1)?

« ZurückWeiter »