GUILTY KNOWLEDGE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 879, 27 July 1910, Page 2

GUILTY KNOWLEDGE.

IN RELATION TO BANKRUPTCY. . ITS ABSENCE NO DEFENCE. An important point under the Bankruptcy Act was disposed of yesterday by the Court of Appeal in the case of Rex v. John Morris Schapiro, a case stated ' for the opinion of the Court by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). The bench'"''' was occupied by the Chief Justice and Justices Williams, Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman. Schapiro, a-cabinetmaker and picture- ■•■•. framor, of Wellington, was adjudged bankrupt in February, 1909. He was, on May 21, 1910, arraigned on an indictment,. ,-' 1 which stated that within three years before the commencement of his bankruptcy, ho failed to keep proper books of account. . The jury found him guilty, aud added to ■ • . their verdict a rider stating that the . books produced in Court wore not properly- kept, but. if the bank-book and ' . the memorandum -stated to be in the pocket of the same had been' produced, . then, in their: opinjon, a statement of how the bankrupt stood would probably have been arrived at,..aud they considered that the Official. Assignee" was to blame in not producing the same. ■Prior to this verdict being given, Mr. Levi, counsel for the bankrupt, had raised the defence that'the bankrupt had no guilty-knowledge as to tho insufficiency . of his books, and.counsel had asked the Chief Justice to direct the jury to take", the question of guilty knowledge into ' . account. His Honour- refused to give this direction, but reserved the point for the Court of Appeal. The questions, for -, the Court of were:— (1) Whether the jury should have been directed that a want of guilty knowledge on the accused's part that his books were not properly kept in . . ■ accordance with statutory require-i ments entitled accused to actjuittal. (2) Whether the jury should have . been directed that the existence of ■ ■ non-existence of a fraudulent intention on the part of the accused was an element in determining his guilt. (3) Whether the rider added by' ' the jury qualified or affected' the verdict,of "guilty." Prisoner was represented in the Appeal Court by Mr. Levi, while Mr. H. H. . Ostler appeared for the Crown. . .' ■ The Chief Justice (after. Mr. Levi had ■ been heard) said the Court did not de-' sire to hear counsel for the Crown. •■ ■" When the case was previously before him, he was not aware of the case of the.".-. King v. Tustin, or he mould probably not have reserved this case at. all, as he expressed then a: strong opinion about it. • .. He reserved it, not knowing that'th'e Court of Appeal had. already decided, the matter in accordance ..'wijth his. opinion. Hedid not think Mi\ Levi could distinguish , between this-case and that of the King ■ ' v. Tustin; The mere fact, that Schapiro was a foreigner did, not affect the • : matter, because the accused had an ao- . >■ countant who told him that the books , were not properly kept, and accused did . : not after that have them properly kept. When the books were looked -into, it could not be found from them how the accused became bankrupt, because' there were really no proper. books. In regard to_tho jury's rider (as above) ,his Honour '• said tho Official Assignee, had not seenthe memorandum referred to, and did not : know of its-existence. Tho jury-had said that a statement of the bankrupt's posi- . tion might have been framed if the,., bank-book and the memorandum had been. forthcoming, but. even if an accountant .. could have framed such a statement from; those materials, it would not show that;., proper books had been kept. The jury's/' rider, therefore, did not vary or nullify' their verdict. The verdict ninst stand.' ■ Mr. justice Williams: I am of the same ■■■'. opinion, and for tho same reasons.. • The other judges also expressed their- . concurrence.