A BANKRUPTCY CASE.

Wanganui Chronicle, 24 August 1901, Page 2

A BANKRUPTCY CASE.

Ab the sitting of the District Court at New Plymouth on Wednesday last, W. D. Scott, who had carried on the business of an auctioneer, stock and commission agent at Opunake, was charged with having fraudulently misappropriated funds belonging to his constituents, and also with having failed to keep proper books. The facts were as follow—One Edmunds, a farmer, being indebted to Scott in the sum of £38 odd, gave Scott his promissory note for the amount, falling due on 3rd November, 1900. On 10th October, 1900, Scott sold some stock for Edmunds and received the proceeds, £47 odd. This amount was not placed in a trust account as required by the Auctioneers Act, but was paid into Scott's" general business account. On the same day a settlement of accounts took place between Scott and Edmunds. Edmunds told Scott to keep in hand an amount sufficient to retire the promissory note at maturity, and pay over the balance to him. This was done, Edmunds receiving Scott's cheque for £2 18s 4d, which waa duly paid. Scott promised Edmundsto take up the promissory note when it fell due. The promissory note was in the hands of a third party, who had discounted it for Scott. Edmunds did not know this. When the promissory note fell due Scott was unable to take it up. He shortly afterwards went bankrupt, and Edmunds had to pay the promissory note. The jury found Scott guilty, and he thereupon pleaded guilty to the second and third charges. Mr. Roy, who appeared for Scott, applied to have his. client dealt with under the First Offenders Probation Act. He pointed out that, although the verdict of the jury was no doubt justified, yet it was shown that Scott did not deliberately defraud Edmunds. The charges had been hanging over him. for over a"year, and it was also shown that he was a young, inexperienced man who had been led into bad habits—drinking and gambling—and had completely lost his head and got his business into a muddle.

In dealing with the accused, Mr District Judge Kettle said "he had some difficulty in deciding as to what order should be made, but he had come to the conclusion not to imprison. He thought it would be better to give the accused a chance. There was a good deal of truth in what Mr Roy had urged. It was, however, clear that, as the accused had been convicted of three separate and distinct offences, he was not within the First Offenders Probation Act. His Honor would, however, deal with under section 18 of the Criminal Code. In taking this course his Honor said he might possibly bo erring on the side of mercy, but having regard to the circumstances of the case, he thought this course was the proper one. The charges had- been hanging over the accused for over a. year, and although the verdict of the jury was a proper one, it did not seem that the .accused had deliberately intended to defraud Edmunda of the money at the time it first came into his hands. It was certainly a gross breach of trust, but, looking at the whole of the surroundings, his Honor thought he was justified in dealing with the case under section 18. The accused would be ordered to find two sureties in the sum of £50 each for his good behaviour for twelve months, and he would also be ordered to pay the costs of the three indictments, and also the amounts of the promissory notes which he ought to have retired. His Honor also pointed out that with regard to the other debts the bankrupt had yet to be dealt with when he came up for his discharge.