THE WACHNER CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16823, 13 April 1918, Page 8

THE WACHNER CASE.

BREACH OF BANKRUPTCY ACT . FINE OF £50 IMPOSED. At the Supreme Court yesterday Joseph Wochner (It. Reed, K.C., and Mr. Black), formerly in business in Queen Street as a fancy goods dealer, was arraigned before Mr. Justice Cooper for sentence on acharge of a breach of the Bankruptcy Act. Mr. Reed asked that a fine only be imposed on the accused, who, he said, had pleaded guilty to destroying certain books. Wachner, who was English by birth, had previously borne an excellent reputation, and his present position was really due to carelessness. Counsel traced the circumstances and civil action in the Supreme Court leading up to accused's insolvency, and stated that the jury in returning a verdict against him found that he had merely been guilty of carelessness and recklessness, and that there had been no fraudulent intention. The actions had considerably affected his business, and hs was eventually forced to sell his remaining stock. At the time of his bankruptcy he did not owe a single trade debt his 'only liabilities— to £725— the. result of the civil litigation. Accused ha<f no assets, but Mrs. Wachner, who had considerable means, paid 20s in the £ on his behalf, as a result of which action there was a distinct undetEnding between the creditors and her that accused would be released from all liability in respect to the bankruptcy proceedings. However, the present action followed. In addition to £725, Mrs Wachner had been called on to pay about £300, the costa incurred in the various proceedings. Counsel also produced medical certificates showine that the accused is in ill-health. Mr. Selwyn Mays pointed out that Mrs. Wachner did not make any offer until proceedings had been instituted in the Supreme Court to have her declared the trustee of accused, or to obtain a declaration that the bulk of the money in the lank in her name, or iD the names of her children, was the property of the bankrupt. Mr. Justice Cooper said the case was cne which might be met with a fine. In arriving at that decision he was influenced greatly by the state of accused's health, and also by tho fact that he had already been punished to tho extent of £1000. The destruction of the books was a criminal act, which made the accused liable to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. In view of all the circumstances, he would impose a substantial fine of £50, and order the accused to pay the costs of the prosecution. The default was fixed at six months' imprisonment, but the order was suspended . for seven days, to enable the accused to pay the monies. Mr. Reed said he would undertake to seo that the money was paid during the afternoon.