ALLEGED FRAUD.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 323, 7 May 1875, Page 4

ALLEGED FRAUD.

;}V£fiSHMAN'S ,O'tTLLr. BANK J " * a ; iitrfTor'oASE. • -." ' 1 At the Dunedin Police' Court,' Joii''Wednesday; H. aid J... Mercer, Esq., John .Grif, fiths was charged on ire'mand with 'havihgjs on February;; at■ Welshniafl , s , r;Gru|ly J ' after filing' sr petition for 'adjlidicatioh, J concealed. his boot of accounts • containing £287, and one-seventh share in a ,mining l company.—Mr; Haggitt' prosecuted ;;and-' M r. Barton in stat-' ing the casei for, the said, tliafc; the charge was brought under the'' ! 3o2h<l" section ofthe Bankruptcy Act 1867, which' provided that any person - adjudge# a.6arjk« ! nipt who does >not,; on his examination,' fully and truly ' discover to the best of his' knowledge and belief all his property .real' and personal, inclusive l <tf his rights.,afid credits, and how ahel to .whom and/for : what consideration, and when he disposed, of, assigned,'or transferred ahy'part and deliver up to th'o 'Court all books"'; and' documents in his possession, custody,- •• or power,,, relating.itto his .property or--at-"* fairs -shall' < bo '-deemed' guilty f ' 1 of' ri' oh conviction th'eeeof shaltbc liable to the discretion ofthe Court be-' forot which JiO: is convicted to 'be imprisoned ■for anytime not exceeding three years; Oi' without hard labor. Sub-section', 1 section '3Q7,' fear#' power :to ,on ,tHe".' application, in case of bankruptcy;; of :-tlie. :trusteesupefrvJaoKW-hriy cre&ifor, to o grant* ft Certificate' certifying'that,'the'bdnlsrupt had not fully disclosed how lie bej- ,r came dispossessed of certain property.-—' Richard Henry. Leary, trustee in bank-, r uptcy for the Dunedin District, deposed that he had been elected trustee for accusedts, estate by the creditors. Witness produced his report on the matter as forwarded to the District Court at Naseby. Ho was present at Naseby on April 17, when Judge Harvey granted the certifi - cate produced.' Accused is the person there referred to. He also produced' the accounts filed by accused. Having examined them, ho could state that they did ! not include a share in any mining claim". Accused at the time of filing his schedule. held a seventh share and water, rights .in a mining claim at Welshman's Gully,:/''now called the Cambrian. The claim in, ques ? tion was known a3 Brown and Co's . andi wasvaluable property. The general opinion in the district was that accused's seventh share was worth from £3OO 'to ;; £32o} Whilst at St. Bathans witness' made" iiU quiries as to the- existence of the share,' and accused admitted his interest in ( j the claim, whiqh, boweyer,';^^pt • closed,in his examination'. . ? In answer to ! witness as to why he had not. accounted for it in his schedule, 'accused he did,not think ,of,it.' judged on l\,prii 22, and .'.wit-; •: ness produced his motion for adjudication.' —By .Mr. Barton : Accused in4iis ; exanti-: nation mentioned that' he had teen in the Hospital for A norince of everything connected with his account books.—This.,was.the..case -for the > prosecution.—Mr. Barton "submitted that' prisoner < must be discharged. This Court | had no power to deal with the matter, and had no right to interfere with it in any< way. .The prosecution, had not' been car-; ried on in the ordinary way with ordinary facts, but merely a certificate of. another Court had ,been put in. Section 305 pro- ; vided that the Court in. which the„exami-j nation was.conducted should commit, and! clause 307, under which the ; charge ' had! been brought, undoubtedly referred to the : Court in which the case was heard. ' Ei- ; ther this Court must hear all the evidence and exorcise its own judicial discretion—they could not' take the certificate of ano- ! ther Court—or else they must come to the conclusion that had Judge Harvey had sufficient evidence befpre-him toi hayie committed accused for trial',,he*.' would,, have done so. Had his client committed a misdemeanor then he was entitled tojbail, but how could the Court exercise its discretion in fixing the bail without hearing the evidence or any facts ? Had Judge Harvey thought it,a proper case for committal ho : would have bound him over, to appear at the Supreme Court, and in the meantime allowed him to go free, or else he nuist havo been of opinion that there was no case for trial at all.—Mr. Il'aggitt, in replying to Mr. Barton's argument as to the impossibility of fixing the bail'without hearing the evidence, argued that it was the nature of the offence and not the facts, which determined the .bail. If the certificate could bo produced ,as evidence against accused in the' superior 'Court, surely it could also be received in. an iaferior Court The'Behch ruled 'that 'they had power to deal with the case. If the contention of the accused's counsel was correct, a .prisoner was .to go free, because a judge did not like to commit. The fair lacy of'this, however, was demonstrated by section 309, which provided that the machinery of the law may be set in motion by other means : than the judge who hears the evidence. . Accused was committed for trial; bail being allowed, himselfin £2OO, and two sureties of £IOO each.—Mr. Barton osked that the bail be reduced, but the Bench held that they would not be justified in so doing, as the offence was a very serious one if the accused was found guilty. They however were willing to afford accused every facility, and would accept bondsmen in the district whence he came, if the forms were properly filled up before the Resident "Magistrate there.— ' Star.'