BANKRUPT STOREKEEPER.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 162, 11 July 1925, Page 14

BANKRUPT STOREKEEPER.

CHARGED WITH BREACHES. MAGISTRATE REFUSES TO CONVICT. (By Telfegraph.—Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, this day. Harry Graham, formerly a grocer, of Hood Street, Hamilton, who early this year filed his estate in bankruptcy, appeared before Mr. W. H. Platts, C.M.G., S.M., at Hamilton yesterday, charged on several counts with breaches of the Bankruptcy Act, in contracting debts, when he knew he had no reasonable or probable expectation of paying them, and of failing to keep proper books. Mr. H. T. Gillies prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr. A. Meldrum represented accused. Mr. Gillies said that accused came to Hamilton in 1921 and purchased the old-established business of Parr Bros., in Hood Street. He had then £2000. He paid £1000 cash deposit on the business, leaving £1000 owing on mortgage. He also bought a house for £1400, paying £1000 cash. The business commenced to go back shortly after he took it over, and bankrupt, at any time in 1924, must have known that he was hopelessly insolvent, yet he contracted a number of debts which he must have known he could not pay. It would also be shown that he had not kept proper and sufficient books. After hearing the e\*idence and bankrupt's statement his Worship said the case was not one of the frequent ones of a man starting business with no capital and then trading recklessly. Bankrupt had met with misfortune during the slump, and he struggled against this misfortune without being able to recover his position. There . was no dishonesty of any kind alleged against him. He lost everything he had except his furniture, which the creditors allowed him to retain, which was some acknowledgment of the fact that he was not to blame for his position. The Deputy Assignee had admitted that bankrupt's schedule was an honest one. This showed a surplus of assets. In view of the fact, his Worship said, he could not convict on the charges of incurring debts without a reasonable expectation of paying them. As to the charge of not keeping proper books, his Worship was satisfied that the books produced had been correctly posted and that his position could have been acertained from them. There was only one point, therefore, on which he could be asked to convict, and that was accused's failure to take stock in 1923. His Worship said he would certainly not convict the man for this. The charges were therefore dismissed.