SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5426, 29 November 1895, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

OBUM.INAL SITTINGS. ; Fbidat, Nov. 29. | (Before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston.) The criminal sittings of the Supreme Court were resumed this morning at 10.45. : There was only one non-appearance of a juryman— James Glanville. The ( service of the summona having been proved, his Honor inflicted the usual penalty, which, however, was remitted when, before the jury was chosen, Mr Glanville appeared and explained he had had to appear as a witness in another Court. BREACH Orf THE BANKRUFTOY ACT. Benjamin Hale pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging him that, being a bankrupt, on April 24, 1895, he had by means of a false balance-sheet and statement of affairs on March 27, 1894, and at other times, obtained various sums of money on credit from the Union Bank of Australia, and had not repaid the same, contrary to Sub-section 20, Section 137 of the Bankruptcy Act, and also within three years of the date of hiß bankruptcy had failed to keep proper books of account showing his real position, contrary to Sub-section 4, Section 137 of the same Act. This case was tried on Nov. 19, bub the jury being unable to agree, a new trial was necessary. Mr Joynt appeared for the defendant, and Mr Cress well represented the Crown. It was decided to first take the first count. Mr Joynt applied that the accused might be permitted to sit beside him, as he would be of material assistance to him, as there were important matters of account to be referred to. . . ■ His Honor saw no objection to the application, which was granted. Mr Cresswell opened the ' case for the Crown and briefly stated the facts, which have already appeared. He called the following evidence :— Andrew Roby Bloxam, Registrar of the Supreme Court, produced . the accused's petition in bankruptcy, filed April 24, 1895. Samuel Hallamore, manager of the Union Bank of Australia, Christ church, deposed that the accused had been doing business with the bank since 1892. The document produced was a copy of a balance-sheet supplied by the accused in July, 1892. On calling Henry Lyttelton Brittain, Mr Joynt objected on the ground that the provisions of Section 344 of the Criminal Code respecting the depositions of witnesses prevented this. His Honor had not the elighest doubt that the procedure provided in the section referred to cases where a witness waa at the point of death, or was otherwise unable to attend. It had no application to the present proceedings. H. L. Brittain deposed he had seen the original document, of which a copy was produced. The accused had supplied the particulars to witness. He could not say whether the particulars had been given verbally or in writing. He had handed the original to Mr France, one of the clerks, and had not eeen it since. The accused saw witness write the document, if he (accused) did not himself write it. Witnesß and accused had discussed the several items in the Jdooument, commenting especially on the balance ahown in accused's favour. On the question of the admissibitity of this copy of the original statement, Mr Joynt quoted the case Regina v. Ellworthy, in arguing against the document being admitted. His Honor decided that the copy of the statement waa admissible. Mr Hallamore, recalled, gave evidence respecting the accused's connection with the Union Bank, which has already been published. He was cross-examined at some length by Mr Joynt. The Court adjourned at 1.35 till 2.30. A. L. Brittain, re-called, depoaed that in July, 1892, he had been temporarily stationed at the Union Bank's branch at Christchurch. The accused had waited on him and informed him that he desired to hand over his account to the Union Bank, and explained the accommodation he wanted from the bank. Acouaed had supplied a statement of his affairs at witness's request, which showed a surplus of .£12,920. Witness's impression was that accused had given him the particulars which he bad written down. They had spent one or two hoots discussing the statement. At the time, witness was not aware that ac&used owed his brother £7000. Had he fcnown that, he would not have recommended the bank to take over Htale's account. In the course of this interview' witness had informed accused that if heonly consolidated his affairs and got rid of ths liabilities attaching to some of the asset? He would be in a perfectly independent position.- This accused had expressed his desire to' do. To Mr" Joynt :' Accused had given him to understand distinctly that he had no assets or liabilities beyond 1 those in this statement. He Had submitted the statement shortly afterwards to Mr" Hallamore. Walter Morton Ollivier/ accountant, | gave evidence respecting the examination of the accused's books. Alfred Lee Smith, acco'tf&Sant for Mesßrs Donaghy and; Compan*?,- Limited, Dunedin, gave evidence respecting accused's connection with the firm. Frederick Morris Warren, accountant for Gould, Beaumont and . Co., gave evidence respecting accused's financial connection with the firm. [Left sitting.] [Per Press Association.] v WELLINGTON, Nov. 29. There is a heavy calendar for the criminal sessions on Monday. The list comprises twenty-eight caaea against a similar number of accused, but there is nothing of unusual seriousness