Wednesday, August 31.

Otago Witness, Issue 2323, 8 September 1898, Page 20

Wednesday, August 31.

His Honor took his seat '?on the bench at 10.30 a.m. ALLEGED LARCENY A3 A SERVANT. The trial of William Bernard Cahill on the charge of the larceny of a large quantity of goods, the property of Charles Shiel and William Shiel, his employers, was continued. Mr Hanion appeared for the accused. George Simpson and Detective M'Grath were the remaining witnesses for the Crown. Mr Hanion, m opening the case for the defence, said it was unnecessary for him to say very much to the jury at present, as he would have the right to address them further at a later stage. He would, however, say this: that the case a& made out by the prosecution was that Cahill was left m charge of the Shiels' business; that while there he was in charge of certain goeds that were m stock and certain pledges; that after or about the time that he left the premises some portions of the stock and pledges weie missing. Proceedings weie then taken against him, and he was arrested, when some of the things which were alleged to have been stolen were found in his possession. Now, his xlonor would tell the jury that where stolen goods were proved to be stolen recently and found in the possession of a certain person, the mfcrencs of the law was that that; person stole the goods unless he could give a satisfactory account of his possession of them. What he proposed to do m this case wid to show that the things identified as belonging to the Shiels, and iound in the accused's possession, at one time came into his possession properly ; and that some of the goods never did belong to the Shiels. As regards these goods he should be able to show whorr they did belong to. If the accused was xofc able to account- ior every aiticle found in Cahill' s possession, still if he was able to give such a reasonable account of the possession of a large proportion of the goods as would justify the jury in coming to the conclusion that in all probability the story which was told by the defendant was the correct one, — and, considering the looseness of ths conduct oi the business from which these thmg3 were taken, they coiild not rely upon the evidence give i by the other side — then they must give credence to the accused's story. He would call acciised's wife in regard to certain of the articles; and he submitted that when tho jury had heard all th 2 evidence they would have no difficulty in. saying thai things* m the business were in a hopeless muddle. Then, lie would point out that the book which contained a list of the whole oi the articles which Cahill took ov3r from the Shiels' was missing; and he submitted that as that book was not forthcoming it showed that there was something very loose about the whole conduct of tho business. Not even a banking account had been kept. The whole business was, indeed, in a hopeless muddle; and if Cahill gave a satisfactoiy account of a large proportion of the articles iound in his possession, then he (counsel) submitted that the jury would not hesitate to acquit him of the present charge. William Bernard Cahill, the accused, gave evidence that on his entering the employment of the prosecutors he took over the stock from Simpson. The list of the stock of which he received possession was contained in a book that was now missing. A few months ago he handed that book to T. Shiel m Jetty street, but is was sent back to the shop, and witness knew it was there shortly before he left. For a few months he, conducted the business without an assistant, and then he had Mahoney as an assistant. From the very first Shiel told him he was going to formulate a new stock book, but in the lneairtinie witness was to go on with the old one. Witness was always telling him that the stock book that was there was not a proper one to keep. Witness told him that he was not a bookkeeper, but a salesman and p. valuer, and that "if he (Shiel) wanted any elaborate books kept he v/ould have to give witness assistance. He said he would send over a young fellow from his office, who was not much good to him there, but, he thought, could keep witness's books, and Mahoney was sent over. Witness and Mahoney then cprried on the business until witness got his discharge. There was no banking account kept, and they never counted witness's cash from the dpy he went in until the day he left. The money was kept in the safe, and if anyone came in for a loan, small or great, he would take the money from the safe. The amount of money in the safe would fluctuate from £15 up to £120, and witness thought that after pne sale there was as much as £250 in the safe. The business was siipposed to expand, and witness purcha sect stock largely with the money that had accumulated. Whenever he went short of money he had to apply to T. E. Shiel for an advance. When witness got notice of discharge Sair.uel Shiel was -sent to take over the business. Witness commenced to hand over the slock to Samuel Shiel. Witness could see from the latter's manner when he came in that he was rather prejudiced. He went round handling articles and keeping up a running fire of remarks. Witness did not take much notice of that on the first day. The second day was the Queen's Birthday and witness took the holiday. In the afternoon he called in on T. E. Shiel in Jetty street, and told him that as there was no particular hurry he did not go down in the morning. On the next clay, when he went down Samuel Shiel was in the shop. Witness told him ho was ready a& soon as Shiel was, and told Mahoney to balance the cash book. While Mahoney was doing this, witness went over to the counter where Sine] was, and the latter started to make certain offensive remarks, saying there would be a- loss of 50 percent, upon several articles which witness had purchased from different persons. Shiel had the invoices for the goods before him when he made these remarks. Witness went in conseoußnce to see Thomas Shiol and asked, "What

have you sent your brother over there for?-^ to take stock or to criticise it?" Shiel replied, " I have sent him over to take stock. If there are 700 or 800 articles there I want him to see that there are 700 or 800." Witness had other private reasons for not wishing to c?.ke stock with Samuel Shiel — his brothers had given witness such a character of him that he ! did not think it safe to take stock with him, — but witness would have waived that if Shiel had behaved liko a gentleman. Witness told T. E. Shiel that his brother had assumed such an offensive attitude towards him that he would not be able to go on long with him without coming to blows. T. E. Shiel said he was sorry. Witness said if T. E. Shiel was willing [ to" go over or send any of his clerks, mentioning two (Lawson and ll' Arthur), he would go through the stock and give over every article; but if T. E. Shiel would not do that witness asked him to put in an independent man and witness would pay for him, and Samuel Shiel could be there to watch his interest if he liked. T. E. Shiel said he did not know of anybody. Witness asked him if it was a question of value, in which case an expert would be required, or a question of the number of the articles. Shiel replied that it was a question of tho number of the articles. Witness said ifc was all nonsense to say that he could not get a man in the city of Dunedin who could do i that, and there was, for instance, Mr Simpson, who had done the work in the past, besides dozens of other men who would be only too glad of the job. Shiel replied that he did not know of anybody, and he supposed they would have to go over it themselves. Witness said if Shiel would not agree to his proposal ho would have nothing further to do with it, and witness offered him the key.3 of the safe, but Shiel told him to give them to Mahoney. When ! witness went back to the shop Mahoney had [ just balanced the cash book, and it -was £G I short. Witness went out and got the £6 and ; made it right. It was not the first time he had j had to make it right. In February on one [ occasion he had to pay in £15 to make it right. ; Witness imputed nothing to Mahoney — he ' always found the boy all right, j To his Honor: There were two of them in ! the shop, and he afterwards discovered thai either of them had access to the cash box. Witness continued: He handed the keys of the safe to Mahoney. Sanracl Shiel had the keys of the shop, and that was another thing witness had objected to in the shop. Witness again saw T. E. Shiel that day, and told him that if he wanted any information about the business he would give it to him or Mahoney. Witness told Shiel that he was going to Wellington to start in business there for himself. He took out saloon passages in his proper name lor himself, wife, and child in the Te Anau, and was arrested at JLiyttelton and brought down to Dunedin. The articles which, had been produced were found in his possession, and he claimed them all as his private property. Witness was examined particularly as to the articles alleged to have been stolen. He produced a receipt from. G. W. Smart, of Wellington, for the military overcoat; covert coat was bought by him in the shop from a midshipman on the iNelson; the gold watch guard was bought by him for £1 10s; and the metal watch for 8s from the Shiels. He could not remember if he brought the silver hunting watch from Wellington or not, but ifc was a common watch, and he had been a dealer in watches for years; the gold watch and^euaTCl wero purchased by him 1 from the firm, in November last for £10 ss; the diamond ring was his wife's engagement ring, and was given by him to her in Wellington over three years ago. and the omcrald ring was given by him to her irt Wellington on their marriage day; the goid chain bangle was knocked down at a sale of T. E. Shicl' 3 for 36s to a cash purchaser, and witness waid the cash for it in the ordinary way, and'the revolver was brought by him from Wellington, and the case for ifc was made for him in Dunedin. Regarding the five parts of •• Imperial Album," he bought a lot of parts in the shop one day for his own use, and took a few numbers kome, leaving the balance in the shop. The blankets were his own private property; the delf ornaments never were in Shiel' s shop ; the carriage clock was bought by him in Wellington; the opera glasses were exchanged by him in Shiel' s shop for a large pair of field glasses, which he brought from Wellington, and which were afterwards sold in Shiei's auction loom; the razor and graduating fed op were brought by him from Wellington ; the picture and frame came from Wellington, and never were in Shiei's shop ; and the silver brooch was a -Is piece which he had had gilt in Wellington. As to the three currency notes, there we'-e some in the shop which he threw into the waste paper basket. They were valueless, and were never taken into stock. Hi 3 child had been playing about the shop, and he had seen them in her hand, and she might have taken them home. He brought from Wellington the publication " Footprints of tho World's History," or one similar. Tho rug straps were brought by him from Wellington, where he had bought them, with a rug, at a sale oi unclaimed luggage at tne railway station; Aud the couch, which was taken in at 14s or 15s, was taken away by him from ths* shop and replaced by a silver Waltham lever, which was sold in the presence of Samuel Shiel for £2. | S. H. Trevena was called to prove that he had made for the accused the revolver case mentioned in the indictment, but The Crown Prosecutor admitted what the witness wis called to prove. Eva Mary Cahill, wife of the accused, dewosed that "the delf ornaments, alleged to have been stolen Ly her husband, were purcnaseel by her in a «hop in Geoige street. The electric battery handles were given to her by Dr Wlutton, of Oamaru, and were her property. She had for years been oidered by doctors to use a bitte'-v. and the battery was sold with the furnituie. "The book entitled " The Ladies' Guide was bought by her in Auckland four years ago, before she maiiied Cahill. Witness further identified the diamond and emeral drings, v.lnch her 'husband hid sworn he had given IJr Hanion, addressing the jury on behalf of the accused, commented strongly on the manner in which the Shiels' business was conducted, and submitted that nobody could ever have heard of a business that had been conducted m a moi c loose or slipshod manner than Uie business carried on by Shiel at the Ballarat Loan Office. They did not keep a banking account, but if they liad no banking account they had duplicate keys, which, strangely enough, were brought into requisition without Cahill' s knowledge. Cahill was given certain things in charge for which he was answerable, and when he was away for a holiday Shiel got his clerk to open up the shop with a separate set of keys. How did they know, if that sort of thing was do.ie on one day, that it was not done also on other days? If the Shiels' business was conducted properly how came it that the stock book, showing the stock taken over by Cahill, was missing? If the prosecution hid showed that Cahill had received these goods into his possession at the shop and Sailed to account for them, there might be something" i;i the suggestion that he had converted them to his own use; but instead of showing that the goods were really received into his possession they said the stock book had gone missing. Counsel submitted that if C'phill was a guilty man he would never have asked for an independent man to take stock when his engagement with the Shiels was expiring, and that his conduct throughout stamped him cs an innocent man. It had been proved conclusively that the accused had been honest in regard to money, and the reasonable inference to be drawn from that' was that he had been, honest in regard to goods, and that was the position counsel asked the jury to accept. Ths accused had given a reasonable account of how

lie came into possession of most of the articles he was charged -with having stolen, and if the jury accepted that in regard to the possession of a large part of the articles he submitted that would so weigh with them that they would give the accused the benefit of any doubt in their minds as to any of the remaining articles. The Crown Prosecutor, in replying, said in 'orde: to narrow down the case he confined the evidence solely to those articles found upon the accused, and did not take the -wider range of calling evidence with regard to a number of articles that the court had been told were inissing. He asked the jury to clisiuiss froiH their minds the idea that the Shiels had conspired to bring about the downfall of the accused, or that they had any motive to do so. Eis learned friend had laid great stress upo/i tho loss of the stock book prepared by Simpsou. But to whose advantage was it that the stock book had disappeared? Cahill himself admitted in cross-examination that he saw the book, and referred to it two days before he left the shop. The inference he asked the jury to draw was that the book was taken away by the accused in older to cover up his offences. With regard to the military coat there was no doubt that the accused brought it from Wellington, tooit it into stock at £1 10s, and took it out •for nothing. He submitted that Mahoney's statements were perfectly true, and if the jury believed him they must disbelieve the accused. His Honor having summed up, The jury retired at 4.50 p.m., and returned at G. 45. The Foreman said the jury were ■unanimous m returning a verdict of " Not guilty " — (applause, which was instantly suppressed), — but they wished him to add that the proprietors of the Ballarat Pawn Office were to be censured for the very loose way in which they allowed their business to be conducted. His Honor said the verdict was one with ■which he was sure everyone who had heard the evidence must heartily concur. The accused wis discharged without a stain on hia character. On the application of Mr Hanlon, his Honor directed that the goods found in the possession of the accused should be returned to him. Thursday, September 1. His Honor took his seat on the bsnch at 10.30 a.m. EEGINA V. CAHILL. Mr Sim said he had been asked to make an application in the case of Regina v. Cahill, , which was concluded on the previous day. : He hacl been instructed by Messrs C. and - iW. Shiel, who claimed to be the owners of the goodb that were the subject of that ca&e. He ' understood that his Honor made an order ] directing the police to hand the goods over to tho accused. As he understood the Criminal Code, it was only in a case where the accused liarl been convicted that the court had power to make an order. His Honor having made an order directing the police to hand over the goods they felt bound to hand them over, but he submitted that the question of the owner- ; ship of the goods was not settled by the verdict of the jury. ' j His Honor said his intention had been to say that he could not make an order, but he ! intimated that the question had been practi- j cally settled by the verdict of the jury. I The Crown Prosecutor (Mr Fraser) said the ' goods were retained at present by the police, j and if they were claimed by both parties, they ] (th.2 parties) would have to assert their rights. ' Hid Honor said he intimated that the ques- | tioa had been decided practically by the ver- j diT: of the jury, but he did not make an order — lie did not think it was competent for him to do so. j Mr Sim said it then remained for the parties to litigate the matter in court. His Honor remarked that what was decided by. the jury was that Cahill did not steal the good 3. ALLEGED FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY. Francis Heriott liaing was indicted on a charge of having within three years before the ; commencement of his bankruptcy, on the 7fch j IDeceinber, 1896, unlawfully failed to keep such j books of account as are xisual and proper m j the business carried on by him, and as suffi- j ciently set forth his business transactions aud f disclosed his financial position. | Mr Sim and Mr Hanlon appeared for the accused, who pleaded Not guilty. The Crown Prosecutor, m opening the case, said the accused commenced business in the ] city some five years ago as a produce mer- , chant, and did a very large business. For most i of the time he was in business he i was on his own account, but for a short time he had a partner. On the 7th December last he was adjudicated a bankiupfc on petition, and immediately thereafter left the colony, and did not return for upwards of a ' year. The result of his foankmptcy was that ! he left liabilities of, roughly speaking, £1520, ' and the only available asset that had been j gatliered together represented something like ;£2OO. There were two counts to the indictment, j ■which was laid under section 137 of the Bank- i ruptcy Act, imder which it was an offence not | to keep such, books of account ?s were usxial j and nroper in the business carried on by the bankrupt, and as sufficiently set forth his business transactions and disclosed his financial position. The bare omission to do that constituted an offence under the first count, and the intention he might have had at the time lie made the omission was of no importance. The Eole question for the jury to determine wis, Did .the accused or did he not comply with that section? The issue was an extrorr.ely narrow one, arid resolved itself into a simple question of fact. He did not mean to say that the mere fact of keeping a certain set of books — a cash book, a ledger, a stock book, and so on — was sufficient, for the books had to be properly kept. In the present bankruptcy these books had no.t been kept, and the result was that the assignee had been perfectly unable to ascertain the bankrupt's position. Lest it should be suggested in any way that the official assignee, by virtue of his office, ■was interested or biassed or swayed in the matter, and as the case rested largely on a question of fact, he thought it wise to bring before them a perfectly independent accountant of very high reputation, who had no concern, directly or indirectly, in the case and on ■whose evidence they might rely with absolute safety and conrplete confidence. He did/not propose to open the case at any length, because the issues were so very narrow, and after the jury liad heard the evidence and the addresses of counsel they would have the advantage that all juries fortunately possessed. It was possible that counsel for the Crown might have strong convictions as to the guilt or innocence of an. accused person, and it was possible that his convictions might sway his conduct of a case ; l>ut juries hacl always the great advantage, after hearing counsel for the Crown and for the accused, of hearing the calm and dispassionate utterances of a judge, on which they could rely in this colony with absolute confidence. The second count of the indictment charged the accused with having, with intent to conceal the true state of his affairs, wilfully omitted at any time to keep proper books or accounts. The first count charged him, in popular language, with not having kept proper books, but the second count charged him with having purposely omitted to keep proper books. In that matter the intention of the atcused arose, and it was the duty of the jury to look at all the surrounding circumstances — at thp actions of the accused and at the course of his business and the nature of his business. They would be told by the assignee that the business wa3 carried on on an overdraft, the Account foeir.g guaranteed tg the bank by the

| accused's father. The business was a very ! large one, but the accused, apparently, did 1 not confine himself to his business — he in- ; dulged in racing, and that, he alleged, was i the cause of his trouble. The accused omitted { to enter any note of his personal expenditure, I and it was perfectly impossible to say from an inspection of his books how much was lo&t by him in his business and how much in an improper use of the money that, as a matter of fact, should have gone to his creditors. An i offence of that kind was at Home ground for j suspending a bankrupt's discharge, but in this | colony it was made a misdemeanour by statute, I and was just as niuch an offence in the eye of the law as an offence under the Criminal Code. The jury were present to give a verdict according to the laws of this country, and if they were ' satisfied by the evidence that the j offence had been committed it was perfectly • clear it was their duty to find a verdict of guilty. Of course, if they were not satisfied j on the evidence, or if they had a reasonable j doubt in their mind, the accused was entitled j to the benefit of that doubt, but it was enI tirely beyond their province to consider what i the effect of such an offence would be pz ) Home. They were not administering English i law here. | Charles Christie Graham, Official Assignee i in Bankruptcy, deposed that oa the 28th Noj vember, 1896, prior to the adjudication of the accused, he was appointed receiver in his estate. He tried to ascertain where the accused i was, but did not succeed. He took possession lof all the accused's books. The principal I books he got were two cash books, three day books, one purchase journal, two ledgers, and 1 some smaller subsidiary books. These he got I where the accused lied been carrying on busi- , ness, in Frederick street. Witness first eni deavoured to find what the assets and liabili- ! ties in the estate were, but he was utterly j unable to find one or the other from the books, I with the exception of such book debts as were shown to be due by the customers' ledger. , There was no profit and loss account kept. In i tho second ledger a profit and loss account was opened, but there was no entry in it. He could • find no accounts of debts due by the accused, lie looked up all the accounts of the various parties from whom he had been purchasing good&, and found that in every case the accounts were squared m the books as if paid off and settled, whereas witness had received proofs of debt from 39 creditors to the amount j of £1524. Witness had only been able to find j what the liabilities were from the proofs of debt that had been filed with him. The assets available for distribution would be about £100. i There was no account in the books of per- ! sonal expenses. There wero a number of en- , tries in the cash Looks of personal drawings. i Sometimes these had been posted and someI i lines they had not. The cash book had not been added up or balanced for six months • prior to the bankruptcy, and when it was | prided up there were frequent errors in the j addition, showing that it was impossible that In could have been balanced. There were two j bank accounts — one with the National Bank I in North Dunedin, and the other with the Naj iional Bank in Princes street, — but the bank | topks were not forthcoming, and witness had j to get copies of the accounts in the. ledger. No bill book was kept, so that witness could I no-, ascertain what bills were current or outj standing. On one page of the ledger he found j a, rough attempt at making out a profit and loss i account in pencil. There was no reference I made to the vaiious accounts from which the | items had been extracted, and on trying to i analyso them he found that the various items I did not correspond with what ought to have , been the correct items. The business was one that would have required a good deal of buy- ! ing and selling. In the longh attempt at a profit and loss account there was no notice taken of personal expenses or of bad debts. Theyo was in the ledger an entry of " Bills receivable," which recorded only one bill, bub there wero allusions to bills in other parts of tho bcoks. Witness did not think it would be possible to ascertain from the books the financial j>osition of the accused within three years fiom his bankruptcy. A liability ledger was not a, book tha-t was proper to have been kept. ! lieference had been made to such a book. i Witae3s summoned the accused to produce it, j and the accused said he could not produce it because there was no such book. The accused I was adjudicated on the 6th December, 1897, and witness heard from him on the Cth February, 1898, when he received a letter dated the 26th January. Accused had previously i telegraphed from G-isborne. There was no record in the books of the accused's racing trans- ! actions. There were four racehorses belonging | to the accused, which witness sold for £80 1 or £90, and witness had to pay claims for jockeys' and trainers' wages. By Mr Sim: The accused had sold out of his business to Young before he left Dunedin, 1 and he believed Young was carrying on the ! business when the bankruptcy occurred. He ■ believed the accused's books were sent up to i his office by accused's biother. Witness did ' not refuse to receive an express load of books. ; An express load of what he was told was loose j papers was sent up to his office, and then sent to the paper mill. He would be very much surprised to be told that these sacks contained books of account. After Laing was committed I for trial in the Police Court, witness summoned him to give evidence before him, but the accused refused to be sworn or to give evidence. After that witness endeavoured to have a public examination, but that miscarI ried, and witness then applied for a date for j another public examination, but was unable I to serve notice on the accused. Witness then j applied for a warrant, but could not get the i accused arrested — Laing took good care of ! that. j Walter Septimus Fisher, accountant in tho ' Official A&signeo's office, remembered that fcorne time after the bankmxJtcy a couple of bags of old books and paper were sent up to the office. As far as witness could remember, the bags contained a lot of old older books and receipts. Eis memory of the matter was very indistinct. By Mr Hanlon : Witness would not swear definitely that there were no account books among the papers. ! John George Kerr, who was employed by the accused as accountant, deposed that when he entered Laing's employ he thought he balanced off the old ledger. There was no tiial balance taken out. The balances were tsken out of the old ledger and transferred to the new. The customers' accounts had apparently been balanced monthly, or else once in three months. The other accounts had not been posted up for some time, and, witness thought, wore nearly all squared off. There had been no entries made in them for some months, , and they had been left squared off. Some of the accounts were left unbalanced. The entries from the other books had not been posted into the ledger. Witness opened a profit and loss account, but no entry was made in it. Witness could not make anything out of the old ledger, and the entries carried forward by him into the new ledger were made from a small pass book in the accused's possession. The cash book had been added up for ]2 months before witness began, but that was all. Witness did not add up his cash book. The bank book not being in his hands at the time and the cash book not having been added up for some months beforehand, witness could not get a balance to start from. Witness thought ho told the accused he required the bank book to show the amount of the overdraft at a given time, but he did not hand it to witness. The cash was balanced daily by accused's brother. Witnea3 thought that the cheques did not all pass through the books. He thought he did not see the bank book during the whole time ho was there. Two banking ftowuats w*r© kept, but $c cheques $Uw,a

[on them were not always honoured. Sorne- < times the dishonoured cheques were paid by ' ca-sh, and sometimes by fresh cheques. "Witness thought there was no record kej^t in the books of the dishonoured cheques paid by cash. When witness paid them he entered them, in the books. Ho could not say if accused pp.id any of the cheques by cash. The cash was kept in a drawer of the safe, to which the accused, the accused's brother, the storeman, i and witness had access. Witness told the ac- | cuseel he did not care to have the responsii bility of keeping the cash under those circuniI stances, and the accused's brother then kept ! it. There were 15 to 20 bill transactions in [ tho course of the year. The customers' accounts were invariably posted from tho cash book into the led«er, but the other accounts were not. A few days before tho accused went away from tho business tho hooks, witness thought, were taken to his hou^e. Theie was no account of personal expenditure in the books that were kept in the office, and there was no account of rocing transactions. The books would not show what money the accud^J drow out of the bu&niess. "Witness always understood fiom him ihar he made money ouo of racing. Witness understood that the ac- , cused attended race meetings, and he had rej ceived telegrams from h'rn from race meetings. j The accused told him he made a piofit of £140 ; at the Kurow or Duntroon races shortly be- : fore he left. He thought an entry in the cash | book, " Gerkens, d 6120," was the record of a I win at. Lawrence, and that an entry "F. H. I Laing, Cotton, £5," represented a. payment to a jockey. Thero was a record in the cash book of winnings of £4S at Winton. There was no record of losses in the books. Witness remembered the Hunt Club meeting in August, | 1596, but accused " went down " then. By Mr Sim: Witness remembered that the assignee sent to the office for the books. A portion of the books produced were at Laing's office and some were at the house. About a month afterwards the a&signee sent an express down for all the books, and witness instructed the storeman to give the assignee all the books belonging to Laing. These were packed in four or five sacks, and sent to the assignee's office, but the expressman reported that tiio assignee would not take them. They were the accumulations of four or five years. Several minor books that were in use in Laing's cifice wore not in court. At the end of every month Laing made up a list showing all the moneys owing by him— not a balance. The list was made up from the purchase journal. The bank overdraft would be entered also on the monthly statements, which were, witness thought, kept on a file in the office. Laing told witness that he kept a private ledger. It was usual that a capital account and profit and loss account should be kept m a pn\ ate ledger. The other books that were m ujo m the office but were not in court were not account books. Witness thought there was a small cash book kept by Laing that was practically a copy of the bank book. A balance sheet i\as made up either when Young went into partnership with Laing, in May, 1895, or when he went out, in May, ]896, and he thought it was in Young's possession. Young showed it to him one day. That balance sheet was prepared by Mr James Brown, accountant. The entry in the cash book crediting Gerkens with £120 was apparently a mistake. The entries in the rough cash book showed 14s 8d and JE3 against Gerkens's name, and might represent payments in connection with Government life insurance. To the Crown Prosecutor: The books that were sent in the express to the assignee's office were of no further use to them. The monthly statements made up by the accused were merely accounts of liability. Alexander J. Cree ±siown, of the firm of W. Brown and Co., accountants, of Dunedin, said he had examined the books produced. He had n:>t seen any stock book. Tf stock was taken regularly there -was no necessity to keep a stoc'i book in a business like that of accused's. The books produced were sufficient for the business if properly kept. He did not think the bcoka were properly kept, or that they sufficiently set forth accused's business transactions and disclosed his financial position. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Sir* said he aid not intend to call any evidence. He thought the jury would have very litue hesitation in coming to a conclusion in the case, and that conclusion would be in favour of the accused. In order to justify the Crown in asking the jury to convict on the first charge it was necessary for them to show that accused had failed to keep proper books or accounts, and that he had done so wilfully with intent to conceal the true state of his affairs. Even assuming that it was pimecl that accused had failed tc keep proper books or accounts there was not a tittle of evidence to show that he did so wilfully or hacl any intention of concealing the tiue state of his affairs. With regard to the second charge, in order to obtain a conviction on that the prosecution had to show what books the bankrupt had kept, and, having proved that, it was for them to satisfy the jury that those books were not the books usual and proper in the business carried on by accused, ancl "that they did not set forth his business transactions and disclose his financial position. He submitted that the Crown had already failed to show what books accused had kept. Mr Graham apparently did not take the trouble to look over the books himself. The evidence of Mr Kerr showed that a large quantity of books belonging to the accused were sent up to the official assignee's office, and he refused to take them, and they wore sent to the paper mills. The assignee was evidently under the imiiession thnt they were simply bags full of old papers. Mr Fisher and Mr Kcir both said they were books belonging to the accused, ancl yet the assignee came to the court and :i&kccl the jury to say that Mr Laing hud failed to keep proper accounts. The fact thnt the assignee did. not take the trouble to look at those books disposed of the case for the Crown. It wxs for the Crown to show what those books were, and that they did not comply with the act. It was the duty of the bankrupt to piocluce tho books now, but what opportunity hacl ho to produce them? When the accused was ill Napier in February last, if the a«--eignoe wanted him to help him to find the Ijooks, why did he not ask him to come down anil do co. But the first thing the accused knew was when he was arrested on warrant, and brought clown here. He was then committed for trial. Then the assignee wanted to examine him, but the bankrupt rightly refused to be examined. The assignee then had a warrant for his arrest issued. Could the jury imagine anything more monstrous than the conduct of the official assignee in this matter? — Could they imagine anything more savouring of persecution? The assignee took proceedings against accused, and wanted to convict him out of his own mouth. The bankrupt said whatever information the assignee wanted he would be happy to supply him with after the criminal charge was disposed of, and the assignee hacl no business to attempt to force the bankrupt to submit to an examination either by himself or before the Supreme Court. The evidence of Mr A. J. C. Brown and the assignee as to the condition of the books was absolutely worthless, because they had not all the books before them. Tt %\as clearly shown that Mr James Brown must have hacl other information before him thaa was before the gentlemen who had given evidence that day, as he would havo to be satisfied as to the exact position of the firm. Tho jury must come to the conclusion that the bookd which were kept disclosed the true position of tho bankrupt, and if that was so they could have no hesitation whatever in acqiuting him. j His Honor having summed \yp, ' Tho jury, tefcix.ed at 8 p.m.* god tefVfffe.64 $0

1 court an hour later with a verdict of " Not guilty." They also added a rider to their verdict to the effect that th*y were of opinion that the official assignee enmrnittacl an error in not ,' exominiug the bp.g to see what books were j there. • The accused was then discharged, but was i in'ij ediately afterwards arrested on war- ! rant under section 88 of the Bank- | ruptcy Act on the supposition that he i wis about to leave his residence with the j view of defeating, delaying, or embarrassing i proceedings under the act. J Mr Sim asked his Honor sitting in bank- , ruptcy to i&sue a- sunmions against the assignee , to show cause why tlie accused should not be j discharged oa the ground that the order for the wajrAut was not in accordance with the j act. | li'i's I! oi> or held that the warrant was in older. | Mi- Him then as-ked his Honor to fix sureties undeii section 88 of the act. Mr F r aser offered no objection, and His Honor fixed sureties for the liberation of accused on bail as follows: — Himself in ; £100, and two sureties of £50 each.