FAILURE TO KEEP BOOKS

Taranaki Daily News, 10 May 1930, Page 11

FAILURE TO KEEP BOOKS

AUCKLAND BUILDER GUILTY

INVOLVED BANKRUPTCY AFFAIRS

COURT DEFERS THE SENTENCE.

By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night.

The trial of Clarence William Bruce, an Auckland builder, on a charge of wilfully failing to keep proper books for three years before his bankruptcy with intent to conceal the true state of his affairs, was concluded in the Supreme Court to-day. An alternative count, was that he failed to keep proper books for a small builder. Briice seemed to have been exceptionally busy, said His Honour in sum-: rain.r up. His practice was to buy a seetrnn, pay a, deposit, and leave the balance of the purchase money on second mortgage with the vendor. From January' to the end of April, 1929, he built houses on ten sections, and he failed in 1 July for £28,230. His assets were ' £28'160. ' which .was a nominal failure of £7O, hilt‘‘a’certain number of the second 1 mortgagees would get nothing on the affairs as they stood. ' It was unfortunate that the only book kept by th'e’’iiecused was missing, said His Honour. ’The claim of the defence was-that thb'bobk contained all the particulars usually found in a journal, ledger, cash, bb'ok and wages book. As to what’the. b'o'b'k’ cdntaim d the Crown witnes ' ' wh'6 :; had it described it' ail'‘wholly inadequate* The question was Jvh'etlier the book contained al’ the accused said it did. Everything went to show tremendous .djflicblty in arriving at 'Bruce’s position. He -was a man-’With large interests' who made no : attempt "tb-save the situation when lie fouiid'''h’e was- getting behind, but filed -his'’Own''petition in bankruptcy. 'lf- he really 1 m'atte" profits out of the first mortgages and these were concealed he would simply get rid of his personal liability when he received his discharges. The Crown’s case was that the houses were built at such lbw costs as to give a surplus. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of wilful failure to keep proper books. Sentence was deferred. Bruce’s counsel 'said he would ask leave to apply to the Court of Appeal for a re-trial. ‘ ‘ ' The Judge said he would consider the point later.