JOSIAH WHITE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXIII, Issue 9089, 28 April 1890, Page 3

JOSIAH WHITE.

ANOTHER GHAEGE. At the Eesident Magistrate’s Court on Saturday, Josiah White was further charged, under Section 163 of the Bankruptcy Act, “ that within four months before the presentment of your bankruptcy petition you did unlawfully and fraudulently remove your property, to the ' value of .£lO and upwards.” Mr Kippenberger appeared for the Official Assignee, and Mr Stringer for the accused. Mr Kippenberger said that the charge was laid under Section IG3 of the Act, which laid debtors open to the penalties of the law, if they, within four months previous to the presentment of the bankruptcy petition, concealed or fraudulently removed property over which their creditors had claims. Mr Stringer objected to the present chsirge being gone into. He contended thit his client was being charged twice over for the same offence. Mr Kippenberger said that he might be able to prove several removals. Mr Stringer thought that his learned friend was trying to get his client charged on account of the alleged inadequacy of the bail. The Bench ruled that the Act contemplated two offences, and the accused might have committed two offences. For instance, there was the alleged removal from the Bluff to the steamer, and the previous alleged removal from accused’s ordinary place of business, where he was said to have addressed his boxes, “ Richardson, Melbourne.” Mr Stringer asked that, if the Bench thought his client chargeable with the second offence, he should be released on his own recognisances. The Bench asked how much value in money and goods it was alleged the accused had to account for. Mr Kippenberger said that there were thirteen cases of goods, but as they were on 'the steamer at Melbourne, it was impossible to say what these were worth untilthey got them back. There was about £260 in money which would have to he accounted for, £2OO of which was in the bands of the wife. Mr Stringer said his learned friend would doubtless admit that the woman had never’ attempted to go away. Mr Kippenberger admitted that she had not, but said that she had concealed herself when she was wanted for examination;

The Bench objected to remarks being made as to the absurdity of the bail to 'which accused had been admitted on his first committal by the Justicea. They may not have been fully seized of the facta of the case. They held that they must remand, on the. second -charge, and bail

would be fixed at accused’s self in .£2OO and two sureties of £IOO. Accused would be remanded until May 2.