SUPREME COURT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 18 August 1924, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CASE AGAINST HOBBS. FOUR CHARGES STRUCK OUT. George Samuel Hobbs, stock dealer and farmer at Wai-toi-toi, has now only six charges to answer, four of the ten charges under the Bankruptcy Act, on which he is at present standing his trial in the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, having been struck off the indictment by his Honor the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) on Saturday. Leave to argue before the Court of Appeal whether the charges came within the Act was reserved to the Crown.

The charges against Hobbs alleged that he made a frivolous and vexatious defence to an action brought against him by the Bank of New Zealand, for the recovery of £2946, failed to keep proper books, and made material omissions and misstatements concerning his indebtedness in_statements made to the Bank of New Zealand and to Levin and Co., Feilding. When the hearing was continued on Saturday morning, George Hutton, of the Bank of New Zealand, completed his evidence concerning the efforts of the bank to obtain a reduction \of Hobbs’ account and his replies to the requests for a settlement. He added that had the bank been aware of the true position of. Hobbs’ affairs during the negotiations, he had no doubt , that Hobbs’ credit would have been stopped and his guarantors called on. Cross-examined by Mr. R. H. Quilliam (for the defence), Hutton admitted that the years 1919 and 1920 and 1921 were the boom years, and that no one was severely pressing clients in respect of accounts such as those of Hobbs. He ascertained in an indirect way that Hobbs was indebted to Levin and Co., and to Mr. C. J. Hawken. This closed the case for the Crown. Mr. Quilliam intimated that he would not call evidence. He then raised the points made when the case was opened, and asked the court to strike out the charges that referred to a statement mad© orally by Hobbs to A. J. Kellow, of Levin and Co

Mr. C. H. Weston (for the Crown) contended that the word “statement” in the section of the Act under which the charges were laid applied to both written and oral statements.

After going thi-ough the charges, his Honor said they were laid under the penal section of the Act. His opinion was that the word “statement” in the section under which the charges were laid meant a statement made by a person when a bankrupt, and, as'the statements mentioned in the charges were made before Hobbs was bankrupt, he did not think they came within the penal clause of the Act. He therefore proposed to strike them out of the indictment so far as the jury were concerned, hut to leave them for argument before, the Appeal Court. He did not think the Act intended such oral statements to he penal. Mr. Quilliam also raised the point as to guilty intention in regard to the charge of making a vexatious defence to the writ issued by the bank, thereby involving the bank in unnecessary expense. His Honor thought there could he no other intention behind the action of Hobbs than of causing delay, which in itself must have involved unnecessary expense. He agreed, however, to note the point and leave it for argument beforo the Appeal Court. The hearing was to be continued this morning at 10 o’clock, when Mr. Quilliam would address the jury on behalf of accused.—News.