THE HARPER CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10083, 19 March 1896, Page 5

THE HARPER CASE.

VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL. (BY tklkqhapii.—press association'.]

Wellington, Wednesday. In Harper's case, after the ovidence for the Crown closed, Sir R. Stout submitted that there was no case to go to the jury. There was no evidence of any security having been entrusted to Harper by Hotham, and no direction in writing as to security. The money was really in tho nature of an ordinary deposit), and no criminal action could lie; neither was thero any trusteeship. The most that could be said was that Harper had committed a breach of trust by transferring. There was a further point, namely, the fiat of the Attorney-General was not issued before tho proceedings began, and that was absolutely necessary. There was no evidence either that the money had nob been paid. Air. Skerretb in reply argued that the trust executed by George Harper and Scott was an express declaration of trust. It was assignable, and Leonard Harper had accepted the trust and acted on it. Aftor considerable discussion, the Chief Justice rejected tho first 24 counts of the indictment charging Harper with having fraudulently converted a security entrusted to him, on the ground that there was no direction in writing as to the security. His Honor, however, on Mr. Skorrett's application, consented to reserve the question for subsequent argument if necessary. Sir R. Stout) asked for the rejection of the remaining counts mainly on the ground that there was no express trusteeship, that Leonard Harper had not the money personally, and Harper and Co. having paid interest to Hotham as on the deposit the position was nothing more than one of debtor and creditor.

The Chiof Justice said he couls not withdraw the case from tho jury on that view, though it was an important view for the jury to take.

Mr, Skerrett then began his address to tho jury. Ho pointed out that the charge was now slightly different from what it was when first presented. The accusod was now charged, first, that he boing an agent entrusted with tho sum of £1000 received in September, 1887, with directions in writing to invest, subsequently converted ib to his own uso, or to uso of persons other than the principal that he represented ; and secondly, that lie being the trustee of a sum of £2000 did fraudulently convert that sum or security representing it to his own use. The insinuation thab this waa a political prosecution was absolutely devoid of foundation, and all the jury had to consider was whether upon the evidence they were satisfied that the accused was guilty of tho offence charged. It was not to the interest of the community that charges such as the present one should be allowed to pass without enquiry, Sir K. Stout thou addressed the jury on behalf of accused. He said the case was remarkable in that the person who was alloged to havo lost his money, or any one connected with him, had not. lifted a linger against Harper, had not made any complaint, had not provod in the estate, or made any claim against the estate. It was also remarkable that the Crown, although in possession of all tho facts had waitod two years before instituting the charge against Harper. Although none of the persons interested in the estate had made any charges against the firm, this was not a case in which tho members of firm had lived extravagantly or had put tho money in their own pockets. Ib was a case of misfortune consequent upon tho enormous drop in land valuos about the year ISS3, and the marvel was that the losses had not been very much larger. The firm had boen foolish enough to take all responsibility upon their own shoulders. They had taken properties into their own hands, and had been foolish enough to keep on paying interest, when the mortgagors wore unable to do so. With regard to the £1000 belonging to Hotham, Sir Robert contended that Hotham allowed the Harpers to keep the money and pay interest on it. Where then was the criminal act? and further, where was the proof thab this amount had not been repaid to Hotham ? There was none whatever. Sir Robert also contended that there was absolute'y no declaration of trust by Harper in regard to the £2000, and therefore the basis of the case for the Crown had vanished. Thero was no evidence whatever that Leonard Harper knew of the execution of the declaration of trust. He did not appeal to tho sympathy of tho jury; all he asked was thab they should go by the evidence. His Honor briefly summed up. The jury in criminal cases must, he said, have the facts proved beyond tho slightest doubt. They must be satisfied the accused was fully acquainted with the contents of all the books and papers, for the evidonce to a great extent consisted of ontries in tho books and papers of the firm. The accused must have had actual knowledge, of the contents. His Honor submitted a number of issues to the jury, who retired to consider thorn at 1 six p.m.

The jury were out just an hour. In giving their verdict they ignored the issues placed before them, and returned a general acquittal. Another case will be taken tomorrow.