TWELVE MONTHS' GAOL

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 103, 28 October 1933, Page 16

TWELVE MONTHS' GAOL

UNDISCHARGED BANKRUPT

OBTAINED CREDIT ILLEGALLY

In the Supreme.- Court yesterday tho jury returned a verdict of guilty against Leonard: Owen' Bellette, who was indicted on .four" charges of obtaining tirediff "while being an undischarged bankrupt. His Honour the Chiof Justice (Sir Michael Myers) occupied the Bench. Mr. C Evans-Scott appeared for the Crown, and Mr. A. L. Hollings for tho prisoner. 1 For tho prosecution it was statod that ou March 5, 1929, tha accused was adjudged a bankrupt at Christchurch, and 'before he was granted an absolute order, of'discharge ho obtained credit exceeding £20 from each of four per«ons. Evidence was given in support of those allegations. The accused gave evidence in his own flcfence. He admitted that he was adjudged a bankrupt at Chrhtchureh, and that he had not yet received tots discharge. Ho'asserted that in cadi of tho four cases before the Court he informed the persons from whom ho had obtained credit that he was an undischarged bankrupt. The jury ictunicd a vcidict oc guilty cm the four charges. On behalf of tho prisoner Mr. Hollaiigs pointed out, in a plea for mitigation of sentence, that in the four cases the amounts involved were each only a little over £20, ihe sum fixed by the Bankruptcy Act as that above which an undischarged bankrupt must not obtain credit without stating that he ■was an undischarged bankrupt. Prisoner •was a married man with a wife- and a large family, three of the children being under five years of age. If Bellotte •was committed to prison, it would mean that the family would be left practii ally destitute. Tho Chief Justice, in sentencing tho prisoner, said that counsel for Bellette .had, stated that if the prisoner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment it ■would raeaa that his wife and children would also be punished. No doubt ■that was so. Counsel had asked the Court on that account practically to nllo"W prisoner his freedom. If tho Court adopted that coui&e it would mean ])0 more and no loss than offering freedom to dishonest persons ml tho Fame position as the prisoner to cummit a hcries of what were really fiauds, and Iheu go into tho witnesi>-box and endeavour by false testimony to induce the jury to-belicvo that honest witnesses who had given truthful ovidonce had given perjured evidence. His Honour said ho could not see his way in the interests of society to tako any such course: If the prisoner had admitted his offence, or even if he had simply pleaded not guilty, the Court might havo listened with a great deal more jtttcntion -to the plea which had been made. Tho Court could not treat the offnnce as a trivial one. The prisoner was then sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment with hard 'labour.