SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLII, Issue 1012, 14 November 1917, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

-ALLEGED BREACHES OF THE BANKRCPTCV ACT. ,The charge' against Evan Williams tfas foritin'uo.d', yesterday afternoon before his , ionoiir Mr/Justice Chapman. THE FIRST COUNT; Charles ■Swabfty, secretary of the Otaki D;.iiy Coinpariv", give evidc-nco. of trans-. ;etimr with R'rovef; and Williams in the J9l4rTs.r«sii'i6a', during' which witness's fit m purchased cream from them. A letter to tho Otaki Company, signed E, Wilhe.ms, was also read, asking that Hireo-quartcrs of the otcaiiV paytucnts to bo. made to Beeves and Williams,' 'and one quarter to L\ E. Williams. Witness dotuilcd.-,tlio several clMxiiies x>afd to Peeves and Williams, >■. William l'oumlcy, munngcr oi the 1-resh Food and'Re Company, W.angajiui, stated ihut in the' 1914.-15 season his firm leceived dilVcront iiuantities of cream froui R-neves and Williams. The cheques paid were: March £9'2s 7d, April £9 15s May £7 16*, Juno £6 3s 4d. These cheques were paid U>vMr-> Williams William .Wright, farmer. Woodville, a supplier-to the Woodville factory in 191415, said ho was a member of the suppliers' committee set up to try and get a settlement from bankrupt!?. Bankrupts' first ■ lefault was in ; 1915. The payments for hut .'season had had not been made.yet. iV'illiarasNvas interviewed about September, 1915 by witness and asked when he would bonus, and he said, he would please. himself .whether he paid nut or not.-- \VitiU*9 .said'.if he. did not- p|y put the case v/Oiild . be taken to Court and the bookt •Hied for: iWitlinms replied that the books earilv ffxed, and added "We know our..secretary,'' To 'Llovd: Sic kne-w of no sWßliw v;;ho luVd ooldeiearn■sfraiuhtont to. V\'llliams "■(Viliiams . w'a.o to riiaiiulaetiire only at. risrilb. William.:-' statemPht to The Otaki "i'.-.rtorv tiuit-'he had Iwnght some oi \m ■.-rp)iliers cream ootriglit. was not correct. This .(whide'd the case for tho Crown. Mr,Llovddid riot call any evidence for defence; and contended thai, there was no case u, .ahswer. If tho cream was iho wixipextV ■ oi ihe suppliers, then another ih&tgd "should have been brought- against - arid -not. the present, one. In summing up his Honor said trin jury I-rd to'consider whether .Williams, in mak-j-v- the-e gifts to his wife, did so with the rlbiect at: defeating ins creditors, and whi-iher the suppliers, even, after they had received advances on their cream; were nor. r'eallv creclitoVfi till.they received their homis at'the end'of- the season. It would bo for tile illlV 10 decide whether Uie monies Williams paid his .v.Ue were tho proportyoof H-eevcs and \\ ilhams or ihe pitipcrty of the suppliers. It, wm to be vomenibered .also that Reeves «id Williams had a lie.l on the receipts to the extent oi Til per lb, ihviv diarffos for manufacture. His Ho!U'.r satd the who e question was whefcher tho payment- made by W ilhams to tis wifeAvere made fraudulently. If thej v.ero not fraudulent, what were they. Koferring to tilie firm's bocks, his Honor reimrted That, the books had been kept properly unt-il the end o tho 1914 seasvm 11 books were neglected alter at 1U cruotcd Williams' remark that the booka ( ',Hld bo Iked, and that, the firm know tWere CBcSo actions hones.. oi diSeet ? It was for the jury to decide. , A VERDICT OF GUILTY. The jury retired at 12.35, and returned jri". twenty miniiles with a verdict, of "guiltv.'' ' ' His Honor deferred sentence. A FURTHER CHARGE. George Peeve., and Evan Williams were charged that, on or about. July 15, 1915, with.intent to defraud tlioir creditors, they did make lo Emily Elizabeth Williams, wife of Evan .Williams, a gift, of certain property IJelpngin'ff to the. linn, consisting of a half-:;hare in (lie freehold lauds, comprising 8.5 acres 3 roods , v )2 peiclies, situated at.-WocKlville, the accused being adjudicated barikr'iipt; in September, 1915. Mr C. A. Loughrian proseciiled, and Mr 11. '•(«: Moore appealed for Ihc Deputy Official Assignee (Mr Gun). The accused plca'dodjriot guilty, Reeves being, defended bv Mr 11. R. Cooper, and Williams by Mr Llo\d. Tin* following jury was empunnellcdj T. A. Hastings (foreman!, A. E. Webb, J. II; Vox; 11. Guy. J. Hunter, L. Arnott, F. Pinion,. A. Chriitonsen, 11. Proctor, C. K. Latwn, F; Necdham, and W. H. Palmer. K. ,W. Cave, registrar of the Supreme Court,..l'dme.M.on, produced ihe pclitioils in Lmikriijiicy of Ixdli accused, als-> ihcirevid(.ueo'giyen at the. public examination held in connection with their bankruptcy. Nonnan L. Giirr, Official Assignee, g-a,vo «:vidonco as to accused's bankrnpny, and tho disjibsal of the property referred to in the charge. -'IVM.r Cooper: Reeves was 'in no way ■responsible for witness's inability to g-t the Looks earlier. He got- ihe main books before seeing Reeves. In witness's opinion Reeves had lost about £2OOO in ihe Woodville dairy factory venture. At this stage ihe Court adjourn, d TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. ' The hearing of the charges'.against Evan Williams and George Reeves of alleged ii regularities in their bankruptcy was continued .before his Honor Mr Justice Chiipiniin.'this niornmg. Mr C. A. Loiighnan prosecuted. Mr 11. G. Moore appeared tor Uie "Official A«rignee, and Mr Lloyd for Williams and Mr 11; R. Cooper for Reeves. Tho accused Kvan Williams gave evidence, and -.stated that, his wife advanced witness £50(1 to assist him in going info partnership -with Reeves. IP- had been unable to repay it since. Prior to 1914 John -Varied had been their cheese-maker. but .luYchpifrC" war- .graded 'second class and lii.S'c-e.r'vice.c had to be dispensed with. Mrs Williaim). 'agreed to do the cheesemalnng aC'tlio same salary as Vaiice had been rechiving. £7i per-week. All'her cheese had been classed 'as fir;;!, grade. Witness's object in aiking the .Otaki Dairy Company xo make a quarter of the cream cheque payable to E. E. Williams was ..that lie roidd pav .back' wages to his wife. Mrs Williams "had received about £IOO in lliis 'way from the Otaki Company and the Wanganui Cod Storage Company. The purchase oi ihe Rosenv.elt, pi-operty was commenced by Rosen volt appmaching witness; Reeves and witness stthf-oquenth visited Rosenveli at- Dann'evirke and (lie purchase was agreed to. Witness did not. littVfl the money 'to pay Ills share of ihe purchase. ;md he borrowed the- money from Mrs Williams. No money was taken out of the. firm's account in eohoetion with the deal. Rc-oves r ;enl his own cheque for hi-i iniorcsr. in the purcliiise. Witness told Mr Lvon. the Solicitor who arranged ihe details, .that Mrs Williams was standing in his (witness's) shoes in Pie transaction. In tho .sale of the linn's two factories, the prices-received were £IBOO under estimate, which was.,a big loss. In ihe dispute with l lie Woodville suppliers, the linn wa- or-ileredJ-o make payment «f £.700 for cheese which,ihe suppliers claimed had been manufactured above the quantify shipped through the Loan Company. The Riverbank factory laid proved a loss owing U> the firm's manufacturing price, being top low. • All these circumstances compelled i heir bankruptcy. To Mr Moore: £SOOO was due the suppliers at. the end of the 1915 season in bonuses. No record was kepi in ihe books of the. amount of cream sold or who it was sold to. Neither was if recorded that part of the cream "cheques were paid to Mrs Williams. This information could have been obtained at any time from the Otaki Dairy Company and other purchasers. Mrs Williams' wages were allowed to get in arrears owing to wiiness having io finance different 'suppliers.- The money .out into the Rosenvelt property by -Mrs Williams Svas not 'oii witness's behalf. Mi'S Williams was part purchaser. Wiiness was not in the deal at all. Wiiness denied that the effect of his selling cream to outside companies resulted in a large deficit in the cheese output in his last season at Woodville. George Thomas Francis, dairy farmer, South -Norsewood, stated he was a supplier, to Reeven and Williams from 1911 to 1914. He was frequently at the factory, and remembered ihe chccseinaker Vance, When Vance lel'i Mrs Williams took his place. Slie was thoroughly competent. At this stage (he ease was adjourned lill 2 p.m., and 'he third charge against the .same;fwo accused, of failing io keep pro •per'hooks, between August, 19M, and September, 1910, with a view lo concealing flit-ir true financial position, was proceeded with. Mr Lough nan prosecuted, and the saihe counsel appeared., as in t his previous charges. The case was heard before the following jury :■ Itobert Smvth (foreman), Jos. Griffith's A E. Hiowii. James Butler. A. Cookslcy' G Gallop, W. Hudson, Herbert, C. J V Hudson, A. J. Berryman, S. 'J. Suiion, W. A. Wood and J..N. Clapham. Norman Giirr, Official Assignee, said the

firm's books camo into his hands about, two Inqntha after the impossible to ascertain tho firm's position Iroin tfi'd books, which,had not been written up during tho last year they ;>voro in business. Proviously to that year, tho J books had boon properly kept. As witness was unable to do anything with the Looks he handed them over to Mr. Grant, accountant, of Paimorston, for investigation. , I 'l'he luncheon adjournment was then .taken.