BANKRUPTCY CASE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 48, 20 November 1907, Page 9

BANKRUPTCY CASE.

STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT. : [BY TELEGRAPH.—TOESS ASSOCIATION.] " Auckland, November 19. Alex. Patterson, in his statement ing tho charges of breach of tho Bankruptey Act, at Hawera, said ho sot up business in Hawera in 18D6, with his brother .and Craig, witness and his brother putting in '£300 each, and Crate. £500. . About \ fifteen months later, witness bought Craig out for £750. Two years later he pur- , chased tho interest of his brother for £1000. was enabled to do this by his landlord advancing him £2000 at 20 per cent. He also . borrowed £600 at 7 por cent., tho business then showing a net profit of £100 a year, clear of his own drawings. In September 1903 ho had a face credit of £4813. Through selling out at Opunake and Stratford, hoi had an abnormally largo stock at Hawora. His finaucos became congested,, and ho gave bills to larger creditors, spread over 18 months, and involving a payment of £420 per month. • He: kept this paymont up for "seven months, i when ho found a difficulty .in obtaining supplies. After a year had elapsed he had i paid £3000 on the original agreement. Ho called'another, meeting: of his creditors, and the, warehousemen renewed the bills for two years, on a Mr; Buehahan agreeing to put . £1000 into tho business, and debtor's wife offering to sellher property. . All his wife's property had' gone into the business, and' his father had lent him £600: He-denied . having sold stock under cost price. Ho attributed his failure to the warehouses declining to 'eontihuo' supplying goods.') Buchanan/ who was to have; gone into) partnership with him, finally withdrew. > The' accused; in reply to His Honour,' ; stated that in April, IUO4, he submitted a balance-shoet to his creditors showing a debitfor six months of £56. He .did not balance again. Ho took a rough stock-sheet in Sop-. ; tomoor, 1905, but did not complete it. ln ; : 'acting as ho did, he thoroughly belioved that' ho could get tho business back. , His Honour; in summing up, put tho fol-M lowing questions to the jury :-r-(l) Was the; ; bankruptcy of the accused attributable to'. , rash and "hazardous speculations? - (2); Did tho bankrupt oii September, 1906, not to tha .best of his belief, fully and truly discover to tho assignee the sum of £53 12s. lid., aa> alleged in tho indictment? (3)' Did tho bank-) ' rupt within three years before tho commencement of his bankruptcy ,fail to keep such books of account as are' usual ,and> • proper- in tho business carried 911 by him, as, .- to sufficiently set forth his business and dis- ■. closo his financial position? (4) Did he, between May 1. 1905, and Soptembor 19, 1906, ■ contract a debt for tho sum of £1878 2s. sd.i ; with Boath, Schoiss and Co., when he could not havo had at tho time the debt was sc ■ contracted any reasonable or probable groundj ■ or expectation of being able to pay tho sameas'well as his other dobts? (5) Did he, be-| tween the samo dates, and in the same circumstances,. contract a debt for tho sum of £52 6s. sd. with Sargood, Sou, and EwenP (C) Did he l between tho samd dates and m th<3 saino circumstances, contract a debt for, the sum of £20 Osi 6d. with James Hodgson? Tho jury retired at 12.15 p.m. to consider, their' viirdict, and remained out until 4.10, when they returned to ask whether it was '' possible to divide the fourth question in any r way. , ■" ■' .. ■' ' .'",?' . His Honour replied iu the > negativo, the wnole thing constituted tho ono oirenco. The.'' question was whether tho accused, in con- ' tracting the dobt, knew he was insolvent, or, iii 'othor words, that ho had no reasonable grpUiid for expecting to bo able to pay tho amount'as'well as his othor debts when they • 'fell duo. ( ". : ' : . : '. ■ Tho' foreman then asked whether it was necessary that they should bo unanimous in their' findings: His Honour replied in the affirmativo, and tho jury again retired. They were caUod in an hour later, when tho foreman, in reply to His Honour, said_ they had 'found a verdict; of guilty on tho third count, but had failed to arrive at, any decision on ■ tho others. : . ' • .■ The prisoner was remanded until to-morrow ,-;,, ■„;,•„. ~,.;