ABSCONDED FROM BAIL.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18635, 2 August 1930, Page 19

ABSCONDED FROM BAIL.

ACCUSED STILL AT LARGE. ESTREATMENT OF BOND ASKED FOR. At me May session of the Supreme Court in Timaru. the grand jury returned a true bill against George Arthur King, salesman, who was charged with obtaining £3B/10/- by means of false pretences. When the I case was called, the Crown Solicitor (Mr W. D. Campbell) informed the Court that the accused had disappeared, and he made application for bail, which had been granted in the sum of £l5O, to be estreated. The application, however, was held over until the present session. When the case was called yesterday, His Honour Mr Justice Adams) remarked: “This is the man who failed to surrender to his bond at the last session.” Mr Campbell: “Yes. He has not been found, and nothing has been heard of him since, and I now ask the Court to estreat the bond.” Continuing. Mr Campbell said that at the last session he was asked to allow the matter to stand over to enable the bondsman to make application to have the amount reduced from £l5O to £75. He had looked into the position, however, and found that none of the administrative officers had power to do this. The full amount could be paid, and the Governor-General, under Letters Patent from the King, could reduce the forfeiture if he saw fit to do so. His Honour: “The Court has no power to reduce it.” Mr J. Emslie, who appeared on behalf of the bondsman, Mr G. R. Scott, car upholsterer, of Christchurch, asked the Court not to exercise its discretion against him. Mr Emslie explained that Scott was not related to King in any way. He had come to know King through having served with him for four years in France during the war, and according to Scott, it was owing to King’s bravery that his (Scott’s) life had been saved. Scott was anxious to do something to recompense King for his action, and that was why he had stood bail for him. When King got into trouble in Waimate, he sent to Christchurch for Scott, who, at the time, did not know why King wanted him. He went to Waimate, and was prepared to go bail for £SO or £IOO. He did not expect that it would be £l5O, and although he really could not afford that amount, he went the full amount.” His Honour: “The position is whether the Court has discretion.” Mr Emslie said that if the Court had discretion, he would like it to exercise it. Another distinctive feature of the case was that the Magistrate gave King the liberty of reporting daily to the police in Wellington. King did not report, and eight or ten days elapsed before Scott, who was in Christchurch, was advised by the police. Scott immediately took out a warrant for King’s arrest. His Honour said that as Mr Campbell had pointed out, there was a way of securing justice. Mr Campbell asked the Court to hold that the direction in the rule was mandatory and not discretionary. His Honour: “We have here a bond for a specific sum. The rule says that the Court may estreat, but that is usua’ly interpreted as must. In that case it is the whole of the bond which would have to be estreated.” Mr Campbell said that in any case, before the Court could exercise discretion, if it had any, both sides would have to be heard. Accused had gone to Wellington with the consent of the bondsman, and had gone to Auckland with his consent. It was the duty of the bondsman to keep an eye on the accused, and he was expecting the police to do something which they were not obliged to do. His Honour said that he would consider the matter.