THE HARPER CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2882, 17 October 1895, Page 1

THE HARPER CASE.

Christchurch Oct. 11. At the Magistrates Court to-day, before Mr H. S. Wardell, S.M., Leonard Harper was brought up ou remand on eight charges of having unlawfully, with intent to defraud, converted certain sums of money entrusted to him to his own use aud benefit. The amount involved was £11,526. Mr Stringer, the Crown Prosecutor, conducted the prosecution, aud Mr appeared for the accused. The first charge was that accused, being trustee of £1751, the moneys of William Miles, Ellen Miles, aud Eliza Hurst, did on November 23rd, 1883, convert the same to his own use. Alexander Miller, formerly accountant with Harper & Co., solicitors; and Edward Parkerson, for many years manager of the financial branch of Harper & Co, gave evidence to the effect that the sum of £1751 was received aud placed to the firm s No 2 account at the Union Bank, which was then overdrawn £11,826 5s lid. The amount next appeared as a loan ou the account of Packer, Harper aud Co. The amount in September, 1887, appeared as debited to account as though repaid to Harper & Co. On the same date the estate of W. Miles was credited with a similar sum. As a matter of fact no money (passed in these transactions , they were merely book entries. As far as they could see no security was ever taken for the sum of £1751. Ou the charge of having converted to his own use the sum of £2OOO entrusted to accused for investment by Thomas Arthur Hope, of London, Edward Parkerson stated that he knew that the investment of Mr Hope’s money was made under directions and with the knowledge of the accused, Leonard Harper, who supervised the investment himself. Alexander Mill*', stated that Harper & Co. this money from Mr Hope in December, 1885. It was invested ou mortgage which was redeemed, and paid into the firm’s No 2 account, which account was not the trust account, but was the genernl business aceouut of thefirm through which moneys, whether trust moneys or not, weje passed. From the year 1888 until just before their bankruptcy the firm, in a large number of cases, rendered false accounts to their principals. In a large number of cases where the firm held investments which had been made for their principals, and the amount of principal invested was repaid to the firm, it paid the principal received to the credit of No, 2 account, and never reinvested the same. The accounts rendered by the firm to their principals represented mortgages so paid off and redeemed, as existing, aud the firm continued to pay interest upon the investment to their principals as thougii tho said investments were existing aud had not been redeemed or released.

Arthur Morton Ollivier, accountant, stated that iu April, 1893, uuder instructions from the Official Assigueo iu the estate of Harper & Co., he made an exhaustive examination of the books and accounts of the firm. Ho ascertained fr.-un examination that in July, < 83G, the firm was insolvent and continued to be insolvent until their bankruptcy in March, 1893. He had prepared a balance sheet showing the position of the firm. In July, 188 G, the liabilities were shown to bo £131,182 4s 3d; the assets, including £99,3G2 3s “ tied-up accounts” wore £142,850 14s 7d; a margin of only £11,868 10a 4d, assuming that all the accounts were good. He was clear that at least one-half of tho“ tied-npaccounpi”' were irrecoverable from oi\o eaaso or another. No provis’cnv was made for inevitable losses. The balance sheet disclosed ij<A anyone conversamt with that the firm at this date was insolvent. Another balance sheet propared by the firm iu 1892 showed that the firm was still insolvent; their liabilities wore in excess ojt the value of the assets by £140,290. 18s 4d. G. it. Greenwood, Official Assignee, stated that the firm of Harpor & Co. was adjudged bankrupt in March, 1893. The liabilities exceeded the assets by £182,830 13s Gd. The statement of assets, *ud liabilities of the private estate of Harper showed that tho. UabiUt ,/- 8 ( , x . cecdod the assets by £30,48-4 £ s The estate had paid u (Uvi.^ jnd J [Gtl itJ t i U) tnit would not, in a j 3 opinion, yield any further dmd- iul tQ the cre(]itMrs Vciiarge of having converted £2250 his own use, the moneys of tho Kov. H. H. Gillett, tho evidence was the effect that the firm received £SOOO from Mr Gillett for investment, that £2750 was invested on mortgage, hut it appeared from tho books that tho balance had never l)ecm paid to Mr Gillett, but converted to the 11 nil's own use. The evidence in tho other cases was similar to that in the cases mentioned. .Accused reserved his defence in all cases, and was committed to take his trial at next silting of the Supreme Court Tho existing bail, accused in his mvn recognisance of £100(1 and two mu 'lie, ol £K)(J() each, was renew (1. Mr H- •!. S. Harman and Mr 15. C. Latter became the bondsmen.