PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A BANKRUPT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14212, 13 May 1908, Page 3

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A BANKRUPT

ALLEtiKD FALSE PRWF.XC'E.

William James Imrie was charged at the City Police Court, ye.stcnliiy, before, Mr I], Y. Widdowson. K.M.. with"having on June 12, 1907, incurred a debt of £1 7s 6d with Messrs I'aterson and Har r by means of a false oretence.

Mr Burna'rd (for defendant) olcelcd to liavo the ease tried by a jury. Mr MacafM'V prosecuted. Mr Afacawy said I lie proceedings were taken under fiib-cctloii 0 of section" 137 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1£92, which made an ollemler liable lo iini'ri.-oumcm for any term not exceeding two years. The fact* won- that Imrie purchased a blacksmith's biwinca ul, Old ram in 1896. and in Mav of 1907 he gave a hiil or ?;i'|,. f or 35590 { 0 W. F. JvJiiiojkl over his goo:!* and chastels and a mortgage over hi.; block Un- ihe «a.me iiinount. At this period he was indebted to .Messrs I'aterson, and Parr to th.e extent of £100, and when the fact, of Hip. mortgage and bill of sale became known t|, o firm sent out a represent alive to ascertain Imrie's tinanrial powlion. 'ibis was on Juno 10, and accused then represented that he was perfectly <,olvenl, a m [ that, a sum of £100 was coining to him from one Curwood. It would he fJiowji, however lhat on this date Imrie had unsecured liabilities amounting lo about £500. Relying on Imrie's statement, I'aterson and" liarr's traveller (Mr Allan) tcok a „ oiv j,, r f ar goods, which were supplied. On Ijcinpr interviewed at a latoi date accused "htil! asserted' that he was solvent, and gave an oi'dei for payment, o! the £100 alleged lo bo coming from Curwood In Pateifon and 1-Jarr. He became bankrupt on Angus! 24, 1907, and then disappeared, and was arrested at Gklxime recently. C. C. Graham, official assignee of the estate of W. .1. Imrie, produced Hie Cassette containing the notice of bankruptcy on Angu?l 24. He also produced a mortgage from bankrupt to W. I'. hVlmond, security the sum of £590 5s 9d. He also gave a bill of sale over his stock to Mr Edmond on the same dale (May 25, 1907) over goods and chattels. Accused had no assets outside those covered hv the documents. llis unsecured liabilities on June 10, 1907, were about £420. Bankrupt's estate was «>kl, unci realised £425—that was for business, freehold, and stock. On June 10, 1907, accused was insolvent..

William IPOeorgc Allan, ironmonger, assistant at. Paterson and Barr's, said in 1907 accused was in business at Outram as a blacksmith. Witness saw him on June 10 of that year in reference to a bill of sale to W. F. Edmond. He told accused that Paterson and Barr wanted to see him about this bill of sale. Accused 6aid it was a private matter and had nothing to do with his business there, and that he would call in awl see Mr Davys on the following Saturday in reference to the matter. Ho said ho was perfectly solvent; that ho had £100 coming from Mr Garwood, ccniraclor for the Allauton bridge; and that ho would pay that- sum, with other sums owing hini, over to Paterson and Barr. Ho then gavo witness an order for goods to the value of £"1 7s sd. The goods were sent out to accused on the 12th of the month.

To Mr Buniiuxl: The statement, made by accused that he was perfectly solvent was made voluntarily. M'itncsa thought Paterson and Barr's debt at that time would be more than £60 or £70, but could not say what the amount really was. Accused said he would pay the £100 and other moneys coming to him to Pai-erson and Barr.

To Mr Maoassey: It was in consequence of this statement that witness booked accused's order.

To Mr Burnard: If witness had :iot considercd accused's statement satisfactory he would have * booked the order, but would not have ecnt it in to his firm. Witness's instructions were not to take an order at all unless he got a satisfactory statement about the bill of sale.

John William Davys, a member of tho firm of Paterson and Barr, stated that tho £\ 7s 3d mentioned in the information represented goods supplied to accused. Witness wrote to accused on tho 6th June, ISO 7, asking him to call. Ho wroto again on the 12th June saying his firm would la glad to see accused on the Saturday morning. Aceu.wd was written to again on tho 18th June and the Ist July, pressing accused to call. Another letter was written to accu«d on tho 15th July slating that the firm had prepared a draft for £97 7s 3d, the amount of accused's open account, and asking him to accept the same. Witness saw accused on the 7th August, at Outram, and reminded bin) of the promises he had broken, and ho replied : "1 am quite solvent; it's all right. This bill of sale, although for £520, I have only leccived £200 on account of' it, and Edmond has to pay me nearly £400 yet." Accused made a statement, of h ; s affairs, which showed a surplus of about £400 of assets over liabilities. He said he was coming into town next day to demand £209 from Edmond. Accused said he had £100 coming to biro from Mr Curwood, tho contractor, and that he woidd give an order on him. ' He gave witness an order, lent him his horse and trap, and witness drove to Allanton and presented the order to Mr Curwocd, who said, " Oh, Imrie owes me money, not I him." In June accused owed Paterson and Barr about £80 on (he open account. ( Iu round figures ho owed £120, but some of that was represented By iron not delivered. Some time afterwards accused came in to file a petition in bankruptcy, and witness had iot 6ecn him since then until the present time.

To Mr Burnard: In exceptional caws small blacksmiths did not pay for their goods before delivery. Sometimes customers who were in difficult ies represented their position as being better than it really was. lii making up accused's position witness took down the figures to acoised's dictation, and arrived at the surplus by deducting the liabilities from the assets. Andrew John Thomson, manager of the Bank at Outram, produced a copy of accused's account from the bank's lodger. On the 10th June, 1907, accused's position with the balik was that his account was in debit £77 2s 2d. Witness also produced an order, dated May 6, ISO 7, from Imrie to Curwocd, which directed Curwocd to pay all moneys due to Imrie into his account at the bank. As a result of this order witness received two promissory notes for £50 each from Curwocd to Imrie. The £77 was owing as against these two promissory notes. Witness could not swear this money was received under Ihe contract. Tiic bills were discounted by the bank for Imrie, and placed to his credit. No further moneys were received from Curwood. Accused's account was closed on December 3, 1907. To Mr Burnard: In June, 1907, accused's account was in credit £15.

Arthur Curwocd, contractor, said he had a contract, with accused for nuking the ironwork for the AUanton bridge. Witness gave th-j two promissory not-?s for £50 each to accused to enable him to financo for iron. These notes were paid at maturity. Witness did not owe anything to Imne after these promissory notes were f' von - ' r he contract was cancelled on the mud August, owing to Imrie asking to be

relieved of it. To Mr IJuriiard: H the contract-had been carried out, the amount coming to Imrie would have been over £300. Albert Vernon Orabbc, Supreme Court, clerk, produced the bill cl sale lo 'Jilmoml dated May 25, .'in<l liio order for adjudicalion of accused as a bankrupt. Accused Msorvod liis defence, and was committed lo the .Supreme Court for trial; bail lieing allowed, himself ; u £50 ami two sureties of £25 each.