Lebnard Harper.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 134, 5 December 1895, Page 2

Lebnard Harper.

VERDICT OF GUILTY. (Per Press .Association). Chbistchubch. Dec. 4. The Harper case was continued at the Supreme Court this morning. ' - Mr Skerrett addressed the jury on behalf of the prosecution. After reviewing the evidence he said it might be assumed that when money was transmitted to ' the colony it should have been —vested in Government securities or real -pro-, perty. No amount of talk could convince the jury there had been good seourity for the so-called investment of money. Law, common sense, and honor all required that a trustee should reveal" to cestuque trust all his relations in regard to trust property, and any suppression of misrepresentation was fraudulent. As to the contention that Miles had consented to trust money being invested on deposit, he held that tt «., trustee he could not invest trust money in his own business ; therefore, a co- - 1 trustee could not authorise his fellow trustee to do so. The position was that a trustee, knowing that he could only pay his trust money by fraudulent nse of other trust moneys, went to his beneficiares, and by means of misrepresentation induced them to allow money to remain in his hands for use in the busi- - ness of the firm. Referring to facte respecting false accounts sent out by the firm, be said this meant that from 1888 to 1892 the firm was carrying on a business which was a gigantic swindle. Sir Robert- Stout, in bis address on behalf of the defence, said he had never before heard a Crown prosecutor apologising for the prosecution of a case not being dealt with on its merits,, and all kinds of extraneous considerations had been brought in. Another peculiarity ] of the case was the Government's activity in prosecuting the accused,' nor could the jury find any parallel case in England or elsewhere in which Govern- ' ment prosecuted without a private person intervening. Government had prosecuted without being requested, - and their reason was ~to show ' for political reasons that they conkpunish people of social position. If, as - prosecuting counsel contended, a tras- * tee did anything improper with his trust that made him criminally liable, then the mere bringing out by Miles of money „ to the colony would make the trustees ' criminally liable. For a trustee to be criminally liable a breach must be shown to have been made in bad faith. Summing np, His Honor said he did not think the Jury was called on to consider the circumstances under which the prosecution had arisen. The case had been conducted by Mr Skerrett without cause for any aspersions of his conduct of it. What the jury had todecide was whether an offence under ' section 79 of the Larceny Act, 1867,' had been committed, and whether 'accused , had been guilty, as a co-trustee, of fraud. They had to consider if the receipt of money in the colony was a conversion. The jury retired at 12.40, and at 140 p.m. the foreman asked the Judge if he held that the accused, knowing of the firm's difficulties in 1883, had not fraudulently converted trust money by putting it on deposit, even if done with the consent of the beneficiares. His Honor said that was his ruling. At 1.55 p.m. the jury returned; ami ' said there was no possibility of agreement. ' The jury was ordered to be locked up for twelve hours. At 5.15 p.m. the jury returned the following preliminary verdict :—" The jury, under the direction of His Honor 1 f ' on the question of law, unanimously find the accused not guilty. His Honor reserved several points - raised during the hearing, and also that of direction. * *- '