TO-DAY.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7411, 13 August 1895, Page 3

TO-DAY.

On the Court resuming this morning/ ». < Mr Rees addressed the jury on behalf of theacoused. He said the.^ufestion the jury had to decide was a very* simple one. The Bectiop?of the Act uud«c which the charge wm brought wais a very straight one. The prosecution had failed to show that the accused' had no reasonable ground for believing that he would be able to pay the amount due to Kennedy and; Evans. The accused's principal creditors were Messrs Hall and Clayton, and. Co., who were well aware of the position of the accused financially. It was absolutely impossible to make head or tail of the accounts produced in Court. r There was a serious discrepancy between .the statements made, and the accounts had been jumbled up. In relation to Mr Hall's accounts, Mr Hall had not disclosed any- figures until the Official Assignee had asked him. The account furnished by Mr Hall was a ludicrous one, and was evidently intended to mislead/ It contained an account of cash and promissory notes. ' He would submit that Mr Hall was BOC the* man to give £100 in cash, and receive nothing for it. The promissory note for that * amount was given for this advance. According to the '"statement produced by Mr Hall he was indebted to the bankrupt. At the end of February, 1894, Mr Hall was indebted to the accused for £16.°' This was shown from Mr Hall's books. He submitted that this way of doing business was not the proper one. whole thing was in a state of, confusion. I'tiere might have been other accounts, but • there was no sum. of £196 18s 4d in the books. JFhe other, hook Bhowß a debit against accused of £68 Os Bd. At the end of December,* 1893, an amount of £39 due by accused Was 'balanced by aP. N. Ihere was nothing to show that this p.k. was not paid. Although on one account there was a debit, on the other there was a credit. No unprejudiced man would say that accused owed Mr Hall more than £25 or £30 in February. With regard to Messrs Clayton's accounts Mr Bennett had made a most singular stateinentj which showed that Clayton had sublet the contract to the accused. They had let their own. con tract to accused, and then charged him with the timber. Accused had trot drawn any of the money. Accused was only nominally Clayton's debtor, but waß really their agenb. 'Clayton and Co. had broken their agreement with accused, and in consequence he had to get timber from Kennedy and Evans. It seemed that the accused had been prosecuted and jambed in every way. For every £lworth.of goods got by accused under the circumstances a charge could have -been laid under this section of the Act. It was not the duty of the accused to prove that he was innocent, but of the prosecution to prove that he was guilty. The prosecntion had argued that on the 13th, February the accused owed £1200 and had only £400 coming to him. Bub he ■t contended that during the first three months , oi the year accused had paid over £2000 to bis oreditora. He would aßk the jury to say that the accused had a reasonable ground t>t expectation oi being able to pay. > That be was not able to pay was clear, but it was not clear that he had no expectation of doing so. The object of the Act was to prevent a man going on recklessly trading when knowing himself to be insolvent. .. Mr Nolen said the duty of the jury was to decide whether the accused had a reaßonable expectation of being able to pay the amount due to Kennedy and Evans, as well is ail his other debts. It was accused's duty to have known his financial position. ; Hia Honor said the jury would have to decide whether, the accused knew his position At the time. Mr Nolan contended that the accused rtiust have known it, but even if he did not that was no excuse, as a man dealing in such - large sums ought to have known it. He must have known his position with Clayton and Kennedy and Evans, as their accounts were rendered monthly. With regard to Mr HftU's books, they were quite clear. If they stopped at the 12th of February, they would see that accused on that date owed -Mr Hall £H7 4s. They had nothing to do with any subsequent dates. This was owing' on the painting account. The other account was for December, January and February. Mr Hall stated that he split up the p.n.'b as he got them, and credited the different accounts. There was no p.n. given for £39, as the bank book showed that no such anm was paid on a f,n. There was £57 due on Father Kehoe's contract. Mr Hall credited the accounts when the con- - tracts were finished. His Honor : That is a most extraordinary way of book-keeping. There was a sum of £177 which did not appear in the books at all. At the time Hall said accused owed , ' him £320 the indebtedness according to his V books was only £140. Mr Nolan said there was no possible doubt as to Clayton's accounts, and it was clear that accused was indebted in large sums to Hall and Clayton. At that time accused owed £1200, and having only Erskine's job "to depend on, and. the prospects ho had at that time, he must have known it was im- : possible to carry on. What does he do? ' He dnly put £80 into Erskiue's job, although he had drawn over £300 out of the bank. There was a very large amount of wages due • afc the time. He could not, in February, >. have been unaware of his position, and must .*.*■■ have. 1 known that he had no reasonable ' ground of being able to pay all his debts on the 13th February. His' Honor said the prisoner was indicted nnder sub-section 2 nf section 137 of the • Bankrnptcy Act, 1892. The offence under this section would have formerly been a ground for withholding a discharge. But the Legislature had under the 1892 Act made it a misdemeanor. It seemed ridicu--lous that under the circumstances, for every • small purchase he made he Was liable to. a - criminal prosecution. It wasi' singular that the Official Assignee and the creditors, who knew just as much of this case in May last - as they do now, should have deferred the prosecution until now. They had had the accused prosecuted before the S MV'jfor not keeping proper books, but had failed to get him put' in prison. The man who brought this case into Court did not come with a very good grace. • Ib seemed to him to Bavour of persecution. . The question for the jury to decide was did ; the accused know he coold not pay all his debts in February last. The evidence given was of a/ very peculiar Wtvpe> J° February

he owed considerable sums of money as well as on p.x.'s current. He owed large sums to Clayton and Co. aud Hall. He understood from Mr Bennett that there was a sum of £40 which should have been credited to accused in Clayton and Co. He, however, owed them a large Bum of money. Ho must say that the more he heard of Hall's accounts the less he understood them. His books contradicted his statement, as Hall said he owed one sum and the books showed another very much less. Mr Hall had a very strange way of keeping his books, as when he received cash on account he. did not credit the account. The question w& whether accused knew his position as regards. Mr Hall, for no man could tell how he stood wilh him. If Mr Hall ever became bankrupt — which he hoped would not be the ease— but if he did, and was charged with failing to keep proper books, Mr Hall would have a very poor defence. It was, however, evident that accused was bankrupt in February last. The accused had taken a contract which was undoubtedly too low, as Mr Skeet had tendered £200 over his amount, and the sureties who had taken- over\ the account had lost money over it. Besides the money due to Clayton & Co. and Hall, accused owed small sums to others. Accused ought to have known his position in February 1894. A man ought frequently to ascertain how he stood— whether he was or was not solvent. Had accused taken the trouble to ascertain how he stood in Febrnary he must have known that he was insolvent. He could not have expected to make much out of Erskine's contract. The accused had shown himself to be an incapable man of business. He had not kept proper books, and did not ascertain his position from time to time. If the jury were of opinion that the accused did not know he was insolvent then they must acquit, but if not they would find he was guilty. The burden of proof in this case was on the prosecution. The jury retired at 11.25. At 11.45 the jury returned, when the foreman announced that they had unanimously agreed upon a verdict of not guilty. His Honor asked who had instigated the prosecution. Was it the creditors, or the Official Assignee ? „,.. ' Mr Nolan j The Assignee was bound to prosecute under the Act. His Honor : If the creditors had ordered it I would have ordered the costs to be paid out of the estate. The prisoner ia discharged.