THE VALENTINE CASE.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11590, 22 May 1903, Page 2

THE VALENTINE CASE.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE POLICE COURT. Oar London correspondent euppKiee the following extended report of the proceedings in the Bow street Polio© Oourt against C. R. Valentine, ex-Produce Commissioner for New Zealand, which ended ac cabled yesterday in his being sentenced to four months' imprisonment: — On Saturday, April 4th, at Bow street Police Court, before Mr Mtrsh&m (senior Police Magistrate), Charles Richard Valentine, of Wellington Chambers, London Bridge, described as the promoter of a meat juice company bearing his name, appeared to ar. adjourned summons charging him Tvith perjury and failing to disclose the whole of his assets when proceedings in bankruptcy were taken against.him. Mr Arthur Gill and Mr A. F. Rowe appeared on belialf of the Bire-ctor of Piiblic Prosecution, and Mr Charles Matthews defended the case. It will b? remembered that it. was alleged that the defendant drew a cheque for £300 in favour of >Jo*srs Person and Rutter, butter merchants, of MAnohester, but had it cashod in London, using the proceed* for his ovm purpose. It was alleged that he paid the sum of £2CO of th? money into the. Houre of Louis as a dspesit in an appeal which ho-intruded to maka against an injunction obtained agninet him by the Valentine Meat Juioo Company of America. When questioned cm this subject in the. course, of bankruptcy proceedings, he said the money had been acvanced to him by a friend. It. vein* alleged tdo that ho caused hie cash-book to be interlined in tfUch a war as to make it appear that he had paid away io creditors £400 more than he had actually parted with. Mr Egerton vSpencer Grey, the- OfEcial Receiver, again gave evideuo? with regard to defendants affairs, and the statements ho had made. On the 14th March, ISO 2, the defendant swore an affidavit with a statement annexed. Witness produced a copy of the statement. It was lodged on Ihs'lllh March, but was sworn on the 14th. On tlij? re-opening of tlw debtor's publio examination he was further examined on April £>lh. The defrndant filed certain cash accounts. On December 41 h, 1901, January 9th. 1902. February 21st, 1902. March 12th, 1902, he libd these. In all those accounts there appeared a payment to M«wre Pearson and Rutter of £500, dated June , l4th, 1901, alleged to have been paid on account of balances, etc. In the last ciu»h account, that of March 12th, it was shown to have been made in two payinenUs of £300 and £200 respectively. Witness produced d«A)l----or's counterfoil cheque book for June, 1901. Flo found on June 14th, 1901, cheques purporting to bo for Messrs Pearson and lintter for £300 and £200. Witn«e had never se?n the cheques belonging to those counterfoils. They had not bean produced. Mr Gill : r Have you caliod for them? Witness: Defendant, **l<l h<? had destroyed them. Examination continued: Debtor handed over to'witnew his pass-book on the London and County Bank. That purported to shear a payment to Messrs Pearson on June 13th of £300, and on June 17th to Karson of £200. At the private examination held on January 27th the debtor was examined in reference to a payment of'£2oo to the' House of Lords ac a deposit on appeal. At the public examination held on January 28th he wae examined in reference, to. the b&vaa subject. The statement made by debtor dealt with the payment to the House of Lords and also to tie alleged payment of £300 to Messrs Pearson and Rutter on the 14th. Mr Pearson was examined privately in the bankruptcy on the 27th October, ISO 2. Witness had' recovered the balance of the i>2oo deposited at the House of Lords. He had j recovered £161 2s 4d. Of the cash balance in hand as ehown by the 'petty cash book on May 25rd, the date of the receiving order, he had never received anything from debtor. He found upon the file an affidavit of debtor of February Aih, 1902, verifying the. notes of public examination taken prior to that date, also verifying a> ca*h account filed 19th January, 1902. There was also upon the file an affidavit of June 10th signed by the defendant.

Cross-examined by Mr C. Matthews: The defendant was employed between 1891 nnd 1895 by the New South Wnlwt and New Zealand Government's as a Produce Inspector in this country. In 1895 he became Produce Manager to tho Colonial Consignment and Distributing Company. In November, 1897, lte registered a 'company called tbe Valentine Extract Company. Thai was a syndicate formed for the pur- , pcea of working ;i patent for putting up meat in a portable form. In July, 1898, ho left tho C.C. and D. Company, an i began to trade as a colonial produce ngent in Tooley street. Hie trade relations with the C.C. and D. Company continued after ha had left that Company. In October, 1838, he was served with nodioe of application for an injunction at the suit of Vulonlinc Meat Juioe Company, of America, to restrain him from carrying on Che sale of meat juice in the name of Valentine, or of exploiting his patent. Tho application for nn injunction was followed,.by proceedings in Chancery, . and lasted from November, 1898, to November, 1839. After a lengthy trial otf Revert days the application' was dismissed, and the, American Comppny failed to obtain tho' injunc- , tion. It appealed. On the 23rd July, 1900, tho Court of Appenl reversed Mr Justice Stirling's judgment, and granted tho injunction, with, costs, both, of the appeal and of the Court below. The costs on taxation were roughly £2900. The taxation mm on the 26tfj January, 1901. On tho 11th February, 1901, the petition for a receiving order was'made. Thsire was an application by the BritMi Dairy Produce Company. The amount of tie debt was £960 14s Bd. The defendant was carrying on his businest) between May and June. Between January and May, 1901, defendant carried on business at a profit of over £1400. That, was taken from debtor's statement; witnewi hod no means of verifying it, but he did not diepute it. Mr Peereon was not the only person vrlih whom he carried on business between May and June, 1901. There wero other firms

to which considerable payments had been made. Re-examined: Defendant first got jndgment in his action rtrith the Meat Juioo Company, but without cotrts. Between January and May, 1901, defendant said he mndb k profit of £1401 13s, but witnciw had not attempted to verify the isttttement. He h;ul had no. profit and lots account showing that ne a result. In. 1899 and 19C0 defendant wa« trading at a'l»>ss. In 1899 his loss was estimated at £660. and in 1900 at £900. In 1898 he traded at a profit, and in tho lost cix months of that year made £1000. From June, 1898, to his bankruptcy he drew £3686, inclusive of £1369 written off. Though Mr Tope had originally the conduct of the bankruptcy proceedings, Mr Knight bad lied tiho inverticrttion of the affoiie of defendant right ihrough. Aβ to the d«lay in the proceedings, that was' due to tihe fact that ilr Pearson bad Treen in New Zealand, and had only recently returned. The proceedings were the. result of the evidence of Mr Wood and Mr Fleming. It was an excwsstvely complicated bankruptcy. Isaac* Edwards, caehier at the Birkbeck Bank, having given formal evidence as to amounts having been passed through the bank , * books, the defendant was committed for trial at the Old Bailey.