ALLEGED FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY.

Evening Star, Issue 9154, 8 June 1893, Page 3

ALLEGED FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY.

At Palmcrston yesterday, before Messrs Ewiug and Mackenzie, Justices, the ca3e of the Official Assignee against James Pickworth for fraudulent bankruptcy was brought on. Mr Dalziel prosecuted on behalf of the Assignee, and Mr Macdonald (of Dunedin) defended the bankrupt. Mr Macdonald raised some preliminary objections, which were over • ruled by the Bench. He then asked that the proceedings should begin dr noro. He understood that bankrupt had applied tor an adjournment when the case was called on the last court day, but that before too application was made the bankrupt had been asked whether he would be tried at Palmcrston summarily or whether he would consent to be tried lefor- a jury at Dunedin. The bankrupt, who was then unrepresented by counsel, had decided to be tried .at Pahiu'irtmi. The evidence of some of the witnesses was then taken, and they were sent away, after which the case was adjourned, so that the bankrupt might have the services of a solicitor. He (Mr Macdonald) urged that the proceedings should begin afresh. The witnesses who had given their evidence had not been subjected to cross-examination, and it would, moreover, be unfair that his client should be held to admissions lie had made without having the assistance of counsel. To partially hear the case and then to call in the aid of counsel was most unfair to the bankrupt. The evidence already given might be the most material connected with the whole charge, and yet the witness.es who had given it had been allowed to depart without being subjected to any cross-examination. He therefore asked that the case should bo started afresh and the depositions taken as though it wee an indictable offence, and the bankrupt sent to Dunedin to be tried by a jury. He contended that it looked as if the "creditors, in selecting Palmerston as the place of trial and in inducing the Assignee to bring it on there, had arranged the whole proceedings for the purpose of punishing the bankrupt with as little ado as possible. In conclusion, he hoped the Bench would not lie parties to any transaction of that sort, and he appealed to them to do justice in the matter. Mr Dalziel replied, urging that tiie bankrupt had already selected his tribuual, and it would not be competent for the Bench to give him the opportunity of being tried by a jury. The evident luiil been taken of certain witnesses who were in attendance on last sitting day, and this had been done simplv to save the expense of bringing them before Use Court again. The "bankrupt had had the opportunity of cross-examining those witnesses, and if lie had not had the assistance of counsel thai: was his own fault. The evidence taken on last sitting day was then read over, Mr Macdonald contending that a considerable portion of it should not have been admitted. There were con.versations bet ween the wife of the bankrupt and the baililf who searched the house, which were clearly inadmissible as against the bankrupt. Mr Dalziel, in reply, urged that the wife was the agent of the bankrupt, and that the latter was bound by her admissions. Mr Macdonald said that if that were the case and she had admitted that her husband was guilty, it would be absurd to admit the evidence,"seeing that the bankrupt was not present at the time. After further argument, The Bench retired to consider the matter, and on returning to Court said that, in justice to the defendant, they would direct that proceedings should be begun <lt noro, and that the ""witnesses who had already been examined should be tendered for crossexamination. They must, however, insist on the bankrupt being .summarily tried at Palmcrston, since he had elected to take that course at the beginning. Mr Macdonald then intimated that he would not agree to that course being adopted. Fie would endeavor to have the case tried before a jury in Dunedin. An adjournment till Tuesday, the loth hist., was granted.