THE HARPER CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LVII, Issue 2640, 15 October 1895, Page 2

THE HARPER CASE.

Eight charges against Leonard Harper of having unlawfully, with intent to defraud, converted certain sums of money entrusted to him to his own use and benefit were hoard at the Magistrate’s Court at Christchurch, states the Press Association. The amount involved is Mr Stringer, Crown prosecutor, conducted the prosecution, and Mr Wilding appeared for accused. The first charge was that accused, being a trustee of J 81751, the moneys of William wiles, Ellen Miles and Eliza Hurst, did ou November 23,1883, convert the same to his own use. Alexander Millar (formerly accountant with Harper and Co., solicitors) and Edward Parkorson (for many years manager of the financial branch of Harper and Co.) gave evidence to tho effect that the sum of .£1751 was received and placed to the firm’s No. 2 account at the union Bank, which was then overdrawn to tho extent of J 311,826 5s lid. The amount next appeared to be a loan on account of Packer, Harper and Co. The amount in September, 1877, appeared as debited to the account, as thoughrepaid to Harper and Co. On the same date' the e-tate of W. Miles was credited with a similar sum. As a matter of fact, no money passed in these transactions. They were merely book entries. As far as they could see, no security was ever taken for the said sum of JU7sl* , . , . ~ On the charge of having converted to his own use the sum of -£3OOO, entrusted to accused for investment by Thomas Arthur Hope, of London, Edward Parkerson stated that he knew that tho investment of Hope’s money was made under directions and with tbe knowledge of accused (Leonard Harper), who supervised the investment himself. Alex. Millar stated that Harper and Co. received this money from Hope in December, 1885. Tho sura was invested on mortgage, which was redeemed, and the money paid into tho firm’s No. 2 account, which account was not a trust account, but was the general business account of the firm through which the moneys, whether trust moneys or not, were passed from the year 1838 until just before tbeir bankruptcy. The firm in a large number of cases rendered a false account to their principals. In a largo number of cases where the firm held investments made for their principals, and the amount of the principal invested was repaid to the firm, it _paid the principal received to the credit of No. 2 account. It was never reinvested. Some accounts rendered by the firm to their principals represented the mortgage so paid off and redeemed as existing, and the firm continued to pay interest upon the investment to t*»eir principals as though tho said investments wore cristina and had not been redeemed or released. Arthur Morton Ollivior, accountant, stated that in April, 1893, under instructions rrom the Official Assignee in the estate of Harper and Co., he made an exhaustive examination of the books and accounts of the firm. Ho ascertained from examination that in July, 1880, the firm was insolvent, and continued to be insolvent until their bankruptcyin March, 1893. Ho had prepared a balancesheet showing the position of the firm in July, ]BSo. The liabilities wore shown to be .£131,183 4s 3d; the assets, including .£90,303 3s “tied-up accounts,” were 4143,050 14a 7d

-a margin of only .£11,868 10s 4d, assuming that nil the accounts were good. He was clear toot at least one-halt ot tho tied-up accounts ” were irrecoverable from one cause or another. No provision was made for inomabie losses. The Wance-shoot disclosed to 01170110 oonrersant with finance that the firm at this date was insolvent. Author haluucesheot prepared by him torlSJßshqwiri tontto firm- was still insolvent—that their liabilities wore in excess of the value of their assets b} Assignee, stated that the firm of Harper and Co. was adjudged bankrupt in March, 1893 The liabilities exceeded the by jSltf l BGO 13a 2d. Tho statement of assets and 'liabilities in the private estate of Leonard Harper showed Wedcd the assets by £30,45l 8s ndestate bad paid a dividend of Cd m the pound, but would not, in bis opinion, yield any furthor' dividend to tho creditors. On the charge of having converted a sum Of A 2250 to his own use, tho moneys of tho EeV H. H. Gillett, the evidence was to tho effect that tho firm received XSOOO from Gillett for investmout; J 52750 was invested on mortgage, but it appeared from the books i that the balance had never boon paid to Mr ,'MlJotfe, but had boon converted to the firm a owe' UC'f. The evidence in the other cases was similar to that in the cases mentioned. Aooused rtwrrod his defence in all the cases, and Was ofoßuuttol to take his trial at the next session ot tho bupremo Court. Tho existing bail-accused in his own rooogitfsaW of £IOOO and two sureties of-81000 S-#hs renewed. Mossts It. J. S. Harman and E. Ct Lssttei 1 ' became bondsmen.