HUGE LEATHER FRAUD.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 192, 14 August 1911, Page 11

HUGE LEATHER FRAUD.

TOHN BOWKOVS TRIAL AND SE-VTE.VCE. Oar Special Correspondent.) LOXDOX, July 7. monev of which they have de- ',, Messrs Booth find others runs PS tens of thousand of pounds, und U Jhites a mercantile fraud on tin c 0 , t scale " said the Common-Sergeant m Z Old Bailey yesterday in passing 81 Le on John Allen Bowron, leather Chants of Bermondsey, and Thomas wharf manager, for conStO defraud. Sydney Bowron, who {false been charged, was acquitted pleaded guilty, and r vht was found guilty. K T Trnvers Humphreys, who prosefrf said the only reason which mSrtd' the prosecution to accept John Sin's pica of guilty without proceed--50 t the charges of conversion .was Sit defendant was approaching seventy „i ace. Knight's cross-examma-Tn on the subject of his financial rela--11 with the Bowrons was based upon Tries in the Bowron's books. From SJTttirM apparent that up to and lf h XlA A- soon as Knight ,rf borrowing, money was advanced Tthe S to his son. who had received «1(U There were other counts in the Sment against John and Sidney Bow--1 and Knight relating to alleged lar--1- but upon these tbe prosecution offer d no evidence, and on heso counts the ji«7 'turned a formal verdict of not guilty. COUNSEL'S HISTORY OF THE FIRM. Mr Muir in defence of Bowron. said defendant was born on April I, 1542 the B on of a provision merchant, and his early training was not such ns to fit him for the financial control of a large business 6Uci as Bowrou Brothers eventually became. The foundation of the busin,.« was reallv the result of the emi- i crotion of one of several brothers to [ >- e w Zealand, the skin trade erf that ■ country being practically created by the JsmilV. John Bowron acted as English agent for the brothers, and the business (gradually grew until, in addition to the Bermondsey tanning business, Bowron Brothers owned the Phoenix wharf and n factory at Crayford. Counsel added that if other creditors of Bowron Brothers had treated the firm in the same W av as Booth and Co. treated them this case and the bankruptcy would probably never have arTsen. The annual turnover of the business for the last twenty years had exceeded £300,000, an immense business far beyond the proper control of a man of the capacity and trainin" of John Bowron. Bowron Brothers carried enormous stocks, they had very small capital (it probably never exceeded £35,000 or £40,000) J finance wa3 the essence of the business, | and unless such a concern was proper];* controlled disaster -was certain to follow. As the result of high prices in the skin trade from 1908 to 1008 there accumulated in Messrs. Bowron's warehouse a stock worth £230,000, while the firm's capital was less than £40,000. This fact, coupled with the stagnation in trade prices meant a loss to the firm of £IOO,OOO, and it was at this time that defendant should have called the creditors together. Then followed the fraudulent duplication of warrants on goods stored at Phoenix wharf. On the eve of their bankruptcy in March the firm owed £220,000, which was £30,000 less than was owing in 190',, and the creditors had benefited to thla extent by tbe postponement of the bankruptcy. Through the bankruptcy Bowron Brothers had been absolutely beggared. They had made nothing out of the frauds, the real object of which was to Seep the business going for the mutual benefit of the firm and their creditors. One of the great causes of the bankruptcy was the rate of interest and commission which had to be paid for purposes of finance. From 1907 to 1910 £37,672 was 1 paid in this way. The young members of the Bowron family inherited £33,700, every penny of which had been lost in the business, in addition to nearly £IOO,OOO which represented the loss of the New Zealand firm. The creditors who had benefited from the postponement of the bankruptcy were, said counsel, Booth Brothers (to tbe extent of £23,000), Fiaher, King and Co. (£13,600), Rock and Sons (£B-100), Stettaner and Wolff (£4300), and Whittard, Crisp and Co. (£4709). Creditors whose claims were greater because of the postponement were Cheverton and Co. by £ISOO, Wollach and Henmar.n £11,300, and Hughes and Sons £11,400.

Mr. Leycester stated that Knight, who was sixty-five years old. had lost all his money, and had not benefited in the slightest from the frauds. THE SENTENCE. In passing the sentence, the CommonSergeant said the prisoners had been convicted on the clearest possible evidence of a mercantile fraud on the largest scale. When they discovered their bankruptcy, the Ann should have filed their petition, and not have continued trading in a sort of speculative hope that the thing -would come right. The frauds could not have ibeen carried out without the assistance of Knight, who was not a dupe nor tool, but an active agent in the frauds designed to keep an insolvent business on its legs. It was impossible in suet a case of swindling on a large scale to paßs any but a severe sentence, and he (the judpe) was not sure that the CourtWould be justified in passing a sentence of less than many years' penal servitude. But in the case of john 80-wron, the Court accepted counsel's explanation that his object was only to stave oft" bankruptcy. Knight was liable to penal servi. tilde, but in all the crrcumstances of the case, and in consideration of the fact that neither of the prisoners war of the criminal class, the sentence would be eighteen calendar months' imprisonment for each of them.