BANKRUPT BUILDER.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 115, 16 May 1924, Page 7

BANKRUPT BUILDER.

MORRIS GIVES EVIDEHCE. ASHAMED OF HIS FLIGHT. The trial of the ex-builder, George Morris, who was charged on four counts, under the Bankruptcy Act, was continued at the Supreme Court before . Mr. Justice Hcrdman. Accused gave evidence that he came to Auckland five years ago, and after working for three years as a journeyman, was a contractor for two years. The chief cause of hia bankruptcy was the failure or delay or merchants to ' deliver his orders, and a consequent insufficient pressure of work on all jobs. In December, 1922, a trial balance showed that he was solvent, but contracts for houses for Messrs. Walker, Hodgson, "Wake and Thomas sank his position. On the face of these contracts he believed now that he had not i allowed sufficient margin, and they were taken at too low a price. Between January ana iiay nis receipts ■were £5083, the amounts paid out through bank accounts were £481. and cash payments amounted to £2042. Wages amounted to about £200 a week, hut up to April Z~. 1923, all his waaes within a margin of £15 were paid. On his arrival at Wellington he had £4 15/, and by working there he obtained money to so to Sydney. A trial balance completed on May 8, the night he went away, showed that his arrears amounted to £2300. Aeked why he went away accused said be was at a loss to explain that. It was the only thing he was ashamed of. He was certainly not in hia right senses. In Melbourne, at the time of his arrest, he was working for a bricklayer. He concealed none of his assete and paid away in wages practically the whole of the £750 drawn from one banking , account. His losses accrued so quickly as to be unrealisable as they went on. In reply to Mr. Paterson (for the Crown) he - said that he had £35 | capital when he started business oa 3iis own account, and later received £300 which he had previously left with hia mother in Australia, and put this into the business. Asked by His Honor and counsel what liame he had given to people he had j lodged with or worked for in Wellington, i accused answered that he hadn't the slightest idea.. Xo one with whom he was connected was interested in him sufficiently to ask his name. 'Cross-examined further he denied I living with a certain wi.iow or corresponding with her, but he admitted that when he went. to Melbourne she followed him and they lived there to-rether as Mr. and Mrs. Leslie Darris until his arrest. She had not handled any of his money, nor received money from .nun. j Mr. Finlay addressed tho jury for the Idetence and the Court adjourned until I to-<iav. 1.. Hls . Honor . »n summing up, reviewed ; the evidence at length. He said there j was no proper explanation of any of the j payments said to have been made by iMorrif. Ko books existed. But that I was not the fault of the Crown: it was ! the fault of bankrupt. The man said tbat when he went away he left the books in his office, and that those books aiterwards.disappeared. The assignee took possession of all the property available, but he could not find any books. If there was any discrepancy in regard to accused's statements about his disbursements of money, it was bank- ', rupt's own fault. There was no direct I evidence about the man having £10 in his pocket when he went away, of Having concealed or fraudulently received even £10; but there was evidence from which the jury would be entitled to draw an inference. In regard to the charges of having contracted debts in April and May when he had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay. his Honor gaid that when these debts were contracted, bankrupt was already heavily in debt to these firms. Was there any prospect in the mind of the accused that he could pay those debts? At that time, according to" accused's own statement, his indebtedness amounted to £2300. He said he had gone to the bad to that extent between February and the end of April last year, a period of four months. The assignee fixed the deficiency at £3783. The jury must assume that Morris had some knowledge of his own affairs and if he did not, then he ought to have had. If he got into a state of hopeless bankruptcy in three or four montha, he ought to "have known about his business. If he knew he could not pay these debt 3, as well aa the preceding debts, he had committed an offence. The Crown alleged that this man well knew he was hopelessly involved, and that' be had contracted "those debts without the slightest hope of paving them, and knowing he could not pay his other debts. As custodians (in this case, at least) of the business morality of the community, the jury, if they believed this, were bound to bring in a verdict of guilty. On the other hand, if they thought Morris was honest and had a reasonable expectation of paying his debts, they would find him not guilty. But they might find it difficult to think that, on the face of the facts that had been brought before them, they might think it was inconceivable that a man such as Morris, who had gone to the bad to the extent of £3788 in a few months, could not know the true situation. Then, why did he leave? He could give no j satisfactory explanation of that, and j the jury was entitled to infer that this i man who disappeared—vanished into the i night, as it were—went to Wellington ' and subsequently to Melbourne, where Ihe lived under an assumed name, and : who did not know what names he lived I under in Petone and somewhere else in I Wellington, that he went away leaving i bis creditors lamenting, because-he knew !he was hopelessly involved- That was I a point to which the jury could give very i strong weight. ! The jury retired to consider ita verdict at 11.20 this morning and had not returned when the "Star" went to press.