JOEY ACQUITS MORRIS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18711, 17 May 1924, Page 11

JOEY ACQUITS MORRIS.

"DID NOT KNOW POSITION." | THREE HOURS' DELIBERATION. ( - JUDGE'S REVIEW OF CASE. The final stage, of the .trial of George Morriswho was brought back from Australia early this year on charges of having left the Dominion in possession of money which properly belonged to his creditors, having concealed and removed £10 belonging to his estate, and having incurred debts while in an insolvent statewas reached in the Supremo Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Herdman. His Honor, in charging the jury, said he did not see how the Crown could succeed on the first count in the indictment, which charged him with taking £10 and upwards of his creditors' money out of the country within the twelve months preceding his adjudication as a bankrupt. The evidence—his own unsupported evidence, it was true— that he did not leave New Zealand till some months after the adjudication, but stayed in and around Wellington. Therefore he advised the jury to ignore that particular count. The second and third counts—alleging concealment or removal of money and property to the value of £10 and upwardswas in a different position. Absence of Books The jury, the Judge remarked, would be entitled to find on the evidence that when he went to Wellington he had with him at least £10 worth of goods or money that belonged to his creditors. There were, His Honor pointed out, no books from which the accused's financial position could bo ascertained. If there was vagueness on that account, and no satisfactory explanation of his disbursements, the accused alone was responsible for it. It was. his business to'explain by means of books what had become of the j property he possessed before he became bankrupt. Although there was no direct evidence that he had £10 in his powtet when he left Auckland, there was evidenoe from which the jury would be enj titled to infer it. If they considered that his explanation of his disbursements was not satisfactory, they were entitled to convict on this count. . The most important part of the indictment, however, said His Honor, comprised the counts that charged accused with having contracted debts in April and May, 1923, which he could have had no reasonable or probable expectation of being able to meet together with his then existing debts. On the part of the Crown it was suggested that the accused, prior to his disappearance, • was in such a hopelessly insolvent position . that he must have known it. If the jury found that fact proved to their satisfaction, it was their duty, as custodians of the business morality of the community—as regards this case, at any rate— bring in a verdict of guilty. Other Points to be Weighed. If, on the other hand, continued His Honor, it was thought Hie accused tTOT' ' honestly believed he had reasonable ' i prospects of paying his debts, he should 1| be acquitted. They might., however, ' I think it unbelievable, in view of the > ! facts before them, that a business man ! could go to the bad in three months to ' i the extent of £3783 without knowing it. 5 Accused had been unable to give such ' explanation as to why he disappeared ' from Auckland, as displaced the suggestion that he had vanished because he 5 knew his position to be hopeless. The > jury were entitled to give great 'weight to the fact that he had disappeared, leavs ing heavy indebtedness behind him. After considering the evidence for ' about three hours, the jury acquitted the ■ accused on all the counts of the indict- ! ment"believing," as the foreman an- ! : nounced, "that the accused did not know 1 j his position until May 5, 1923." ' . The date mentioned by the jury was 1 three days before Morris left New Zea- • land. Accused was accordingly discharged j from custody. ======== i • ~ .