BUILDER’S FAILURE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19240, 4 February 1937, Page 15

BUILDER’S FAILURE

BANKRUPTCY SEQUEL

THREE BREACHES ALLEGED

JURY CONSIDERS VERDICT

(Por Press Association.)

PALMERSTON N., this day

Three breaches of the Bankruptcy Act. were alleged against Frederick John Duckworth, builder, in the Supreme Court to-day: (1) That accused failed to fully and truly discover to the deputy-official assignee all his property; (2) that he failed to deliver up interest in a motor car being part of the property under his control; (3) that in a statement relating to his affairs he made a material omission, that of his interest in the car.

The accused pleaded not guilty. Evidence was given by I. D. Litchfield, deputy official assignee, that the statement of assets made by the accused at the time of his bankruptcy made no reference to the car, which witness subsequently recovered and realised upon for £75, after £0 4s had been paid to meet a lien held on it. Subsequently witness placed the matter before tho Crown solicitor. Robert Porter, formerly a director of a motor firm, gave evidence that accused bought from the company a car under a hire purchase agreement. He got behind in the payments, and an arrangement was reached that the car should be sold on accused’s behalf, accused to be credited with any balance after the firm's account had been met.

R. .T. Meatyard told the court that at a meeting of creditors accused said the car had been seized for .a small payment. Counsel for accused did not call evidence. He submitted that tho motor firm secured possession of the car and held it as security for money owing light up to the date of bankruptcy. There was still a balance. Accused had no asset to hand over.

The jury retired to consider its verdict.-