SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXII, Issue 1746, 11 May 1906, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTING'S.

(Hoforo Llis Honor Mr Justice Chapman.) BANKRUPTCY AOT.

| John Smith and John Scott woro in- ! dieted on a second obargo of act alleged breach of tho Bankruptcy Act by contract ing debt with Evans, Niold and Co. withcut probable ground of expectancy of boing able to pay same, in addition to their oth r debts. Mr J \V. Nolan (Crown Prosecutor) conducted tho pvosoention, and Mr 11. J. Eton appeared tor defendants. Tito following jury was empanelled;

Messrs D. J. Burry (foreman), J. Warrou, W. Green, W. Maacn, A 1 kina, E Young, W. J Barlow Ellery, T. Bell, A. 3. Evans, J. W. Cook, and 0. Piosse. John Coleman, D.puty Official Assignee and acoouutant, stated that defondants were adjudioated bankrupts ou the 22nd March. Ho produced a statement of nssets and liabilities. It showed the liabilities .£9lO aud the assets £379, leaving a deficiency of .£531. Ho found assets were under .£25, and there was a liability on tho Hospital contract of .£133 10s which was not shown. Ho rnado tho total liability at the time of filing as £lOlB, Witness produced bankrupts' statement ns to oauso of bankruptcy. Mr Finn objected to this statement being put in, as witness had writtou requesting them to send tbo statement. H s Houor said that section 93 only app i-.d to a formal examination. Tho statement ws in otleot a voluntary one. Tho statement was put in. Continuing, wituoss said tbo bankrupts had been in bu-imss a lit la under twelve mouths. Wituoss asked for a further

statement, and bankrupts asut in a book which showed a statement of their different contracts and the prods and loss on oaoh of them. The first ooutract showed a loss of £'2o 11s, Iho socond contract showed n profit of £9 os os, the next a loss of £-19 los, and the next a loss of £275 9a, The total 1033 was £336 lls 9J. Witness produced proofs of debt put in by Common, I Shelton and Co. of £96 Is 2J, Alpha Sawmills Go. £169 16s 10J, Evans, Niold and Co £7O 9s lid. By Mr Mr Finn : After March 6sh there | was about £SO of goods supplied by Evans, Nield and Co. During their partnership they had handled seven contracts. lo regard to the contract for the Alexandra Tea R joins there was a profit of £SB 2s 31, which would have come into the estate but for the existence of lions. There were liens also on Leslie’s contract to the amount of £332. Iu fact they jumped on these men at once. There were thiea unfinished contraots at the date of the bankruptcy. Had they oompleted the other coniraot they would have received £450. Too oontraots that these men were about to take up amounted to £1603 10s, aod they had paid £45 in deposit. Witnet i got his principal information from Mr Seott Sill tb a tended

to the labor part of the work, while Seott attended to the fioaooial part. He did not notice that certain sums had been paid for architect's fees.

Re examination : He produced tbe proof of debt to tbe Hospital Trustees for the completion of the unfinished work at the Hospital, the amount being £B9. G. K. Pasley, representing Common, Shelton and Co., stated in cross-examina-

tion by Mr Finn that Seott was tbe principal man with whom they had business. George L. Evans, of the firm of Evans, Nield and Co., stated that the dat-:s of March in the proof of claim should be February. It was a o’erreil error. There was no monopoly that he was aware of in the building trade. Ho did Dot 33k aooused to give him a turn. By Mr Nolan : Aooused gave witness an order for £l2O on the Alexandra Tea Rooms oontract for £l2O, and they only got £6O. Francis Stafford stated that in January accused owed him £294. Hs stated that he could not go on supplying him withuut payment,

By Mr Finn: Ho knew accused before they started business. It was not arranged that witness should start them in business. He gave them credit at first. He never knew that they had no Capita l . They oomnenced in April, and witness stopped their credit eight months later. Scott told witness prior to the 15th April that bis partner had money at the bank. He did not inquire of Smith whether this was so. He gave them considerable credit, and received about £7OO from them. Witness tad been a working mao, and bad received credit. If bis creditors poanoed upon him he would simply pay them. Mr Finn : Then you a.o a very fortunate man.

An able defence of the acoused was made by Mr Finn, and His Honor in summing up analysed the evidence. He said that there was little evidence against Smith, who had attended to outside matters and left the business portion to Sectt. He said there was no doubt the accused had gone behind very much, and the real question for the jury to decide wa3 whether they had reasonable hope of settling their debts—if the accused were honest in hoping they would be able to pay their way ; in that ease the jury should acquit them. The jury retired for half an hour, and then brought in a vordict of not guilty. FAILING TO KEEP PROPER BOOKS His Honor then dealt with the first oharge, in which a verdiot of guilty had been giypo, and sentenced Sco’tb to two months’ imprisonment. His Honor said : 11 So far as Scott is concerned, I oannot ovetlock the faot that he received, more than onoe, proper caution as to the way in which he waß carrying on bis business. I put aside entirely what wag beard to day, nnd what has been investigated by th s jury that has acquitted Scott, but I may say this, it is almost certain that if you had kept proper books this seoend oharge would never have arisen. I am quite sure that es the result of not keeping proper books, the consequence is' that a further oharge may often have to bo laid. You, Sooit, ought to be imprisoned, although 1 am sorry to do it, but I feel I would not be doiDg my duty otherwise. You are sentenced to be imprisoned in Auckland gaol for two months, and I make it without hard labor, as I do not wish to infiiot that upon you. As to Smith, bo is a young man, and I think it sufficient in his caso to admit him to probation for two months.”

ALLEGED ASSAULT. Robert Leslie was charged with assault, and oausirg bodily harm. Mr Nolan, Crown Proseoutor, conducted the case for the OrowD, and Mr Finn appeared for the prisoner at tho bar. Tho following jury was empanelled : W. H. Chrisp (foreman), M. McLeod, O. Wood, F. Loomb, 11. Fttram, W. Yardley, H Craill, B. Stoggall/H. Bendlo, F. Cox, A Goldsmith, and J. Rossbotbam, ‘ Wen. Mansen, oaiter, Patutahi, stated that ho saw the accused and Rogers Bitting on the door-step of the buildiDg having a yam. Ho saw some body sinks Rogers, and ho fo'l bade on tho grass. Witness picked him up, put him outside the door and told him to go home. Afterwards he saw accused kick Rogers oo the side of tho head a 3 the latter was lying on the ground. Witness shoved aooused away, and pickod the man up. Ho was out about the face.

By Mr Finn : Aecusod wa3 not drunk but under tho influtnoo of drink. Wit n:sa’d opinion of wbon a man was drunk was when ho was down and could not get up, A jar of beor was brought after tho shop was shifted about half-past throe. Thero was some beer brought about two o’clock. Thero was dancing in tho even ing. Witness only saw accused kick Rodgers onco, Edwin Young, Patutahi, stated that he was Ih3re after the removal of the shop. He saw the prisoner there and Rodgers. He saw a scullb between Rodgers and Leslie. Rodgers was on the ground, and witness saw Leslie kicking him about tbo face.

By Mr Finn ; They had a dance, and thero was somo singing. AH wero sober. Witness originated the concert and the dancing about sevm o’clock. Witness arrived about six. Ho saw a two-gailon jar. It was refilled about four times. Witness did net know who supplied the beer.

80-cxamiocd : Thera would be abou twenty tbore.

John Morrow, blackuuitb, atatfd that ho hoard a noise at the blacksmith's shop about ton o'olook. Ho wont over and found Bulgers lying on tho ground, face downwards, with his hands ovor bis bond, and witnoss saw the prisoner kick him ttvioo on tho hoad. Mansou shovod him olf. Leslie rnndo auotbor attempt to kiok Rodgors, and witness provontod him. By Mr Finn : Thoy all had somo drink. Witness had one glass in tho morning and anothor in tho afternoon. By His Honor : Ho aid not hoar Loslio say anything when ho was kioking tho man.

Walter Braybrook stated that ho was a* tho blacksmith's chop on tho ovoning of tbo 12th February. Ho hoard a noiae, nnd saw Leslie striking Rodgors with his olouohod firt. Ho thou saw Leslio kiok Rodgors. A minute or eo lator witness wont outside tho Bhop and saw Lsslio kiok Rodgors onoo. Rodgers was badly out about tho faoo and was blooding. By Mr Finn : Aooueed had bis arm in a sling all tho time. Rodgors and Loslie woro both slightly undor tbo influenoo of drink William Bonis slatod that ho saw Loslie kicking Rodgors, who was lying on the ground. Rodgors was marked above tho oyo and on tho oboek. By Mr Finn : They had some drink, I but were not drunk. David Howo'l stated that ho heard a

dispute inside tho blaoksmith’s shop. Aftorwards ho saw Leslie kiok Rodgers in tbo faco.

By Mr Finn : Some of tho mon woro under tho intluonoo of drink. Witness had two drinks Witness saw somoono oatch Rodgers by tho collar and throw him on tho ground. Ho did not think it was Leslie. This ooncludod tho case for tho proseoution.

Mr Finn d'd not call ovidenoe, but addressed the jury. Ho pointed out that thoro must havo boen a considerable amount of drunkenness goiog 00. They wero having a jo'lifloallon after the re* movfll of tbo building He stated that no evidence had boen producod by the Crown to show that the prisoner had any boots on at the time, or whether ho had boots heavy enough to inflict the injuries whioh Rodgers had reooivod. His Honor said that the prisoner was charged on two counts ; one with oommon assault, and tho other with assault so as to cause bodily harm. He drew their attention to Dr Cole’s evidenee as to the nature of RodgorB 1 wounds. The blows had been given with considerable violenoe, and it was for the jury to oonsidor how they had been irflieted. Bofore tbeycould oonvict they must be oonviDoed that the prisoner intended to commit an assault upon Rodgers. It was one thiog for a man to strike anoiher under provocation, or to have a fight, and another to ksk a man so as to cause him bodily harm. Where there had been muoh drinking they had to put their own interpretation on the evidence of witnesses, but there were soveral witnesses who were able to give an intelligible aocount of the proceedings. His Honor reviewed the evidence of each of the witnesses. The j ury might take a different visw as to how far these men were under the influoooe of drink. Tb#y had to discriminate between a blow struck wilfully so as to oause an assault, or an excessively violent assault suoh as to do bodily harm

(Continued on page 4.)