THE HARPER CASE

Auckland Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 288, 4 December 1895, Page 5

THE HARPER CASE

(BY TELEGRAPH. — PRESS ASSOC'TATIOS.)

CiiP.isTCHURcn, this day. Ix the case against Leonard Harper at fcho Supreme Court yesterday tho following evidence for the prosecution was given :— William Miles, co-trustee in the Miles trusb, deposed that when the accused informed him money had been lent to Packer, he had nob taken sbep3 to verify the abatemenb, as Packer waa a reputed wealthy man. After repayment by Packer, witness was informed by Parkernon, manager of the financial department) of Harper and Co., that the money had been paid in one deposit to Harpßr and Co., and was secured on floating securities passing through the office. Parkerson did not give witness particulars of the security, but gave witness tho impression that the money waa well secured. He had never heard of the money being invested with Packer, Harper, and Co. In 1893 witness became a creditor to Harper and Co., and had received a dividend of £56, apart from which the whole of the trusb fund waa lost. To Mr Wilding: Took no.deposib receipt from Harper and Co. When he was told the money was held on deposit in the office ho understood the money waa than used on shorb loans. Parkerson, prior to 1883 managing clerk to Harper & Co.'s financial department,gava evidence respecting the firm's investing departmenb. Ho said he remembered £1,751 being received from England for inveabment on Miles' account on the Ist March, 1884. Ib was credited to Packer, Harper and Co., bub there was not security for it. It had been intended to secure ib by a contributory mortgage over a freehold at Rangitika, but for some reason this was never executed. Had Miles' money been demanded within a year or two after it had been re-deposited with Harper and Co., it could have been paid out of No. 2 account. He could not say why no investment was found for money from 1887 to 1892. Prior to 1887, instructions were received from some English clients to remit Home their money as it fell duo, and these instructions were complied with as far as the firm could afford to do so, as it was not always possible to find money to send Home. Mr Skerrett here desired to show from the witness that in 1887 the firm was in such a position that ib could nob meeb a demand for repayment of the moneys entrusted it for investment. Sir R. Stout objected to this, contending thab nothing was done after the commission of an alleged oflence by an accused person could be given in evidence against him, except in cases of uttering and cognate offences. He cited numerous authorities in supporb of his argument. Mr Skerret submitted thab the Crown was entitled to prove conversion of the money at any time when in possession of the accused. He cited several authorities in supporb of this argument. After considerable further argument Hia Honor said he waa not satisfied that Mr Skerrett was not entitled to put in the evidence. He would therefore admit general evidence on the matter. He would note Sir R, Stout's objection. Examination of Parkeraon continued: False accounts were rendered when principal monies repaid. Such payments were not credited in accounts sent Home, in ! which mortgages still appeared as current. The firsb false accounts sent, according to witness's recollection, was in 18S8. Accused was aware of these falße accounts, as !ho had directed witness how to make them out. To Sir R. Stout: No untrue account had ever been sent to Miles. Alexander Millar doposed he had been accountant to Harper ana Co. from 1886 to 1893. He could not say that he remembered falae accounts being rendered to clients in England in 1886 and 1887. There were faiae accounts rendered in 188S, and up to March, 1892. Accused knew of those false accounts, as wibness had several converaationa respecting them with accused. Charles Reginald Bradley, clerk to the Union Bank, produced certain books of the Bank, and gave evidence reapecting the depositing of a sum of £1,751 in the Harper and Co.'s No. 2 account. He also gave evidence respecting the state of Harper and Co.'s several accounts at different periods. Graham Lord Greenwood, Official Assignee, deposed he had administered the estate of Harper and Co. A dividend of7d and a fraction had been paid in the pound.

Peter Pendor, inspector of police, produced the information signed by the At-toruny-General. sanctioning the prosecution of accused by witness.

Sir R. Stoub enid the consent of bho At-torney-General waa nob sufficient under che Acb.

Witness said the Attorney General had conferred with the Crown Lav/officers prior to signing the information. Arthur Morton Olliviergavo confirmatory evidence restricting the firm's account. Thia waa the case for the Crown.

Sir R. Stout raised a question of the legality of the Attornoy-Genoral'a consent to the proßecucion, and contended that no information existed, as tho AttorneyGeneral's signature wag insufficient, as the Acb provided thab sanction must be given before the institution of proceedings, and tho sanction, haa been dated the day after tho institution of proceedings.

Mr Ktppenberger, for the Crown, said the information was in tho hands of the Attorney-General, unsworn, when sanction was givon. The question was really one of intention.

Hia Honor fahought ib was nob a matter to go to the jury, and, not being prepared to decide tho matter, offhand, he would note Sir R. Stout's objection.

Sir R. Stout said he did not propose to call any evidence. The Court adjourned at 4.30 o'clock till next morning,