POLICE COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7403, 3 August 1895, Page 3

POLICE COURT.

[Before Mr Booth, S M. J. W. Mackrell was charged at the Police Court yesterday, under subsection 2 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1894, that prior to bis being adjudged a bankrupt on 22ud May, 1894, he had obtained goods from Messrs Kennedy and Evans to the amount of £7 11b 7d, whon he could not have had any reasonabie expectation of paying for the j same — which was an indictable offence. Mr Nolan appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Day for the accused. Mr ColemDu, Official Assignee, deposed that accused was adjudicated a bankrupt in May, 1894. His liabilities were pub down in | the statement at £926 3s 6d, and assets j £203 2s. Liabilities to the amount of £11 SO were proved in the estate. The Bum of £34 had been realised out of the assets. ' From the way in which accused had kept his books it was impossible to ascertain his position ab any time. The bank book shewed an overdraft of £138 Is 6d on February 13th, 1894. Messrs Clayton and Co , Dalrymple, and F. Hall were creditors in the estate. To Mr Day : The accused offered to make a composition, which did not eventuate as was unable to find the money. Igynen the accused made application to the Court for his discharge, witness had stated that several of the creditors wished to prosecute him. Mr Evans was one who mentioned the matter to him. Did not , remember Mr Hall saying he would prosecute accused. Accused had informed witness that he had been trying to arrange the loan of the composition fund with Mr Hall, and that Mr Hall had afterwards declined to carry out the arrangements. He had explained to witness the reason Mr Hall had refused to catry out the arrangements, but be could nob then remember them. Mr Evans, he believed, had voted that the composition offered by accused should be accepted. He Was not prepared to say that bad the composition been' paid the prosecutions would not have followed. It was not witness's ' fault . that proceedings had not been taken earlier against the accused, as the matter was in the hands of the Crown solicitor. To Mr Nolan : For some time prior to the February sitting of the Supreme Court, witness had been laid up. He remembered the action against Mr Erskine brought by Messrs Kennedy and Evans. The proof of Messrs Kennedy and Evans and order of adjudication, were produced in connection with that case. He bad sot seen either of them since. They had been produced in that action but though he had made for them of all the counsel engaged in the action, be bad not seen them again untU very recently. To Mr Day : In reference to the claim of Messrs Kennedy and Evans, witness did not know what the timber was obtained for. He knew that accused had several contracts on band at the time, besides Erskine's. . Mr 0. Birss, ledger-keeper at the Bank of New Zealand, said the pass book produced contained a ■ correct/ copy of accused's account with the bank. The p.n. produced for £10 13s 6d, was paid on the 14th of February 1884. There was another for £10 due on 21st March. A third note of accused's for £11 9s 6d, due on 22nd March 1894 was produced. To Mr Day : All the promissory notes were paid on' the' due dates and debited to acensed's account. Mr C. D. Bennett stated he was connected with the firm of Clayton and Co. Accused was indebted to the firm on the 13th July 1894, to the extent of £386 14s 2d. He was one of the sureties for accused in Erskine's contract, which amounted te over £1,100. So far as his firm were concerned, they bad delivered £8 lls 6d worth of timber for this contract, up to the 13th February, 1894. The sureties had to take over the contract, and had made a loss to the extent of £238 on the contract. He did not think it was possible for the accused to have made a profit out of the contract at the price be bad taken it at. His firm did a good deal in the building business. Mr Day objected to the question as to whether witness had made a profi^out of the contract. Mr J. T. Evans, a member of the firm of Kennedy, Evans, and Co., stated that accused was indebted to bis firm at the time he filed, and on the 13th February 1894 he owed tbe firm £78 14s Bd, including current p.n. 'a, also tor goods supplied on the 13th February 1894 amounting to £7 odd. To Mr Day : The timber obtained on the 13th February was for .Erskine's contract. Witness thought at the time accused got the timber he did not explain that he could not get the timber from Clayton and Co. At this stage the Court adjourned nntil 2 p.m. in order to enable a sitting of the Licensing Committee to be held. Oa the Court resuming in the afternoon, Mr F. Hall was called. He stated that accused was indebted to him at the time he filed, and on the 13th February 1894 owed witness £321 7s. Witness bad proved in the estate. He was one of accused's sureties in hia contract for Erakiue'a building, and bad to complete it. Had experience in building and painting, and thought there would not be any profit in the contract, which might, if properly managed, have just come out all light. To Mr Day ; Accused had been in communication with witnessed' lawyers and him- : self about the proposed composition. The composition had not fallen through because Mrs Mackrell would not give witness security for £100 more than the amount of the composition. By the advice of His solicitors he bad refused to complete the arrangements for the composition.. Mr J. Dalrymple, manager for Mr T. Dalrymple, stated that accused was indebted to T. Dalrymple at the date of his bankruptcy. The sum of £41 was due on the 13th February 1894, for which judgment bad been obtained against accused. To Mr Day : The whole of the £41 was : overdue on the date mentioned. Mr W. J. Quigley, architect, stated that he was architect on Erskine's contract. On the 13th February, 1894, accused would have no tbiDgtohis credit on that eon tract. No work bad been done, though the timber was on the ground. Accused had a contract for a building for Father Kehoe, and had about £200 owing to him on that date. Accused had a contract with Mr E. P.Joyce at that time, and he would have owing to him on that contract about £60. He had also about £50 coming to him from Mr Stevenson for building a bouse on Kaiti. There was one payment due to him from tbe Education Board of £25 on the 13th Feb. At that time there f «-was a good deal of work going on, bat could ' . not. remember of any other work accused bad in hand then. The value of the timber on tbe ground at Erskine's on the 13th February would be about £30. To Mr Day : Prior to the 13th February, 1894, accused bad drawn nothing on account of Father Kehoe's job, so there was over £400 to be drawn when the work was finished. When the work was half done there was a •lot of material on the 'ground. In addition to the £60 from Mr Joyce, accused bad also done some other work' for him which amounted to £24 10a. To Mr Nolan : All the work that had been done by accused on Father Kehoe's property np to the 13th February, J894, amounted to ' £200, and be had material on the ground to the amount of about £80. Mr J. Coleman, re-called by Mr Nolan, said acoused furnished him with an account between Mrs Mackrell and accused. Tbe account showed that he had received from kj& wife £201, and had paid on her account TB3, the difference, £138, was owing to her >^n the 13th February, 1894 The accused aad been before him and he had heard the evidence of the last witness, Mr Quigley. (The payments from contracts mentioned by ; Mr Q.aigley were, according to the bank book, £350 paid in by Building Society cheques, which he believed to be on account of Kehoe's contract. There was a School cheque for £25 ; cheque from Mr Joyce for £66. There was £50 paid in notes, but from which contract this was received witness could not say. £40 was paid in by cheque of Mr G. Scott. That he believed was for work done for Mr Scott. There was trace of the £24 10s for Mr Joyce's contract. { To Mr Day : Between the ?3th February and the time he filed accused had paid into bis account £1015 0s 6d, £100 of which was a cross entry. To Mr Nolan : That included large sums on account of Erakine's contract, including £160 on March 3rd and £175 on April sth. The payments out of the bank were principally wages. To Mr Day: The amounts paid out were ' <%. Represented principally by promissory nptes.

Mr W. A. Barton, Registrar of the Supreme Court, produced the adjudication of (he bankruptcy of J. W. Mackrell. This closed the case for the prosecution. The accused, who reserved his defence, was then committed for !:id. Bail was allowed, accused in his own recognisance ul £50.