SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXII, Issue 1744, 9 May 1906, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS,

(Boforo Ilia Honor Mr Justice Chapman.) A SERIOUS CHARGE.

Iu the case of To l J aio Akapu, found guilty upon a ohargo of onrnally knowing n girl under tho ogo of 1(3, Mr W. L Bees who appeared for aoeueod, addressod tho Court, ftnd aluo eftllod evidence »d to tho previous oxed'ent character boruo by ftCC isod. CoiiDtftblo Mollsop, of I’ott Awiuiui, said tha: HOCiiDod boro ft very good oharnotor. Askod in to whether ho hod anything to say, rtocused replied iu tho negative. Addressing tho prisoner His Honor said, 1 I am vary sorry to havo to soud n uiau of your good obarnctor lo prison ; but tho law leaves mo no alternative, us I do not thii U I should reloaso you on probation iu a oaso Ike this. Ido not intoud to treat you as soveroly as I would treat a European in the same position, booause tho Europeans have n bettor understanding of tho conscquonoes of otlonoes against our law than possibly you may bavo. But I am satisfied that you know, not only that you wore Motiving tho law, but that you wore liablo to bo seat to prison for so doing. This law is made for tho protection of young girls, aud tbo Court must insist that is shall m >ko na difference whether those girls are European or Maori. I wish |

jho Maoris up and down this oonst to know that this sort of thing must bo stoppod, and that it shall bo put an oud to by iulliotiog puuishmont on those persons who break tho law. Tho girl was only 111 years of ago, aud tho law does not recognise that sbo has power to give consent to suoh an act. I givo tho fullest considera-

tion to two other oireumstances—ono is that you said nolhing and did nothing in this Court to throw mud or cast aspersions upon tho character of tho girl, aud the other is that you have not attempted to defend yourself by giviug fahe evidence, Taking all these oiroutnstanoes into oon sideration, it is my duty to sentence you, and accordingly I do so. You are sentenced to six months’ imprisonment iu the Auckland prison.”

ALLEGED ASSAULT. A Maori of tho ancient warrior type, 70 years of age, was indicted upon a ohargo of iDdioting grovious bodily harm on another native of aoout the same age, the alleged offence taking place in the Waiapu district. Mr J. W. Nolan, Crown Proieoufcor, conducted the protecutioD, and Mr \Y, L. Rees appeared for the prisoner, Tne following ja r y was empanelled ; Messrs D. J. Barry (foreman), T. Bed, W, J. Ba-low, C. Pirsao, J. W. Allen, W. E Yuung, J. Beadle, Ellery, J. W. Cook, Woods, J. PoDsford, F. Hell. The evidence showed that the troub'e arose over a dieoussion as to whioh place a meeting should be held in connection with a oarta'n native tribe During the course of the argument the al’eged offence tork place. For the defence it wss contended that tho defendant was indignant in regard to reflections oast on his parentage, and thtt in warding off the resultant attack, a knife, which be bad in his hand, accidenta ly osm? in slight contact with the other native. His Honcr directed the jury that the important point they bad to decide was whether the act was wilful. A verdict of not guilty was returned. THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. John Smith and John Scott, builders of Gisborne, were charged with an alleged breach of the Bankruptcy Act in failing to keep proper bocks. Defendants pleaded not guilty. Mr Finn appeared for accused, and said the charges were simply a misdemeanor under tho Bankruptcy Act of 18S2, and not a felony.

The empanelling of the jury was then proceeded with. The accused freely exercised their right to challenge, aDd soon the Registrar announced that Scott had reached the limit to which he was privileged to challenge. At this stoge eight jurors had been challenged, thcs9 challenged being Messrs J. A. Harding, A. S. Evans, E F. Ma'thews, H. Yardie.y, W. H. Chrisp, C, Rosie, H, Cos, F. J, Juene, and H. Webb. Oj reference tc the Act His Honor announced that every person arraigned was privileged to challenge s'x persons. The Crown Prosecutor said that the two defendants were ebarg d for odo offence. They were a firm, and arraigned as a firm. His Honor : Hardly so. The firm does not exist since the bankruptcy. The Crown Prosecutor: lam not pushing it. lam only mentioning it. His Honor: You are quite right to bring it np, but the Act says “ every person arraigned,” and unless same other interpretation can be put on it each defendant must have six challenges. The empanelling of the jury wae then oontinued, defennants challenging several more, and the Crown Proseoutor also exercising his right to do likewise. Finally the following jury took their seats; Messrs J. Brown, A. C. Goldsmith, W. Hedley, H, H. Faram, H. Warren, B. Stegall, T, Gal away, M. McLeod, E G. A. Reynolds, W. J. Green, W. Mssod, J. W. Cook. Mr Brown was chosen forem id.

Tne Crown Prosecutor opened the osse for the prosecution, showing that the law required proper books to be kept in any business, and that these men had not done eo. Ignorance of the law ccu’d net bo deemed an excuse. From (he evidence it would seem that there had been deliberate neglect to keep proper books. John Oolem.n, Deputy Official Assignee and accountant, slated that he knew tho defendants, who were adjudicated bankrupts on their own petition on the 220 d March. They handed witness one book, and a bank paes book, which were the only ones produced. The books WBre not such as were proper in such a business as was carried on by people in

that business. He did not look upon them n 3 account books at a'l, as they did not show tbe position. The entries bad not been made from day to day. The books teamed to be a summary of a few acoounts up to the date of bark uptoy. He did cot tbink they wore a true acoouDt showing their true position. They did not disclose their financial position, Tbe bank pass bock show d that the statements of accounts paid by bankrupts ,£4370 15s 61- It did not show any dates as to the period in which tbe money was handled. They filed on the 22nd March, and had been in business fully 12 months before. Tbe first entry in the pass boi k was oo November 2nd. The book showed that £916 was passed. The bankrupts bad apparently bandied the difference without passing it through their account. After tbo bankruptcy witness asked them to furnish him with particulars of their account A third book was haudeJ, which it was admitied had been made since tbe bankruptcy. By Mr Finn : Ho knew defendants before the bankruptcy. They were continually taking contracts up to a few hundred pounds. They had dealt with seven contracts du-ing their partnership, two cf which had been comploted. Their business was small in comparison with tbe busineis io Gisborne. There were claims for about £3O for wages at the date of the barkcuptcy. Ho did not know whether Stuiih could read or write. He did not coosider that Soott wa3 an accountant. Io h's examination Scott had said there weio three other small pccket bocks. He had not asked for them. Tbo wtitiDg in the pocket boiks appeatod to be the same as in tbe other book, Be examined : The amount of the oontroots shown totalled £3096. A. F. Kennedy, manager for Messrs Wi liams and Kottlo, said he knew wbat class of books should bo shown by contractors and builders in order to show thc-ir business transactions and fiDanoial position. The bocks produced were not usual and proper books. The proper method of book-keeping should be by a ledger, a oash bock, and a j ournal or day boik. The botki were no statement of their transactions at all. They were not books at all as psed in business. If ho wanted to arrive at their finanoial position be wonid got no assistance whatever from tbo books. By Mr Finn j A ledger, a cash book, and a j;prna! should be used in any business,

By Hia Honor : At tho least a man should start with a cash bock, even if they had not tims to construct a ledger.

F. Stafford, timber merchant, s’ntod tho bocks did not show any transactions except iu bulk, There woro uo details about thorn. They would bo of no assistance) in ascertaining their financial position. Witness had oonsidorablo dealing with defendants. They woro indebtod to him to tho extent of -C204. Ho had dealings with them tiooo their oommouocmont in April of last year. He had conversation with defondants about thoir business on May Oth Scott brought him a ohequo, and witness told him it should bo pa'd into tho hank, nnd all payments should bo made by ohequo. Another ohequo was brought 1' ter, when witnoss gavo tho samo advice. Scjtt did not eoom to pay auy attention, so witness saw Smith, who said that his pariuor objeetod to this course. By Mr Finn: Ho know defendants boforo. Thoy woro wnrkiog men. He had found Smith an houost, straightforward man. This oonoludod tho oaso for tho ptosoou-

tton. In summiug up, his Honor said that in tho obnrgo against defendants it was not ucocsrary that thoro should bo any fraudulent intention. Tho law laid down that it was an offence to ucgleot to keep proper books. They had export evidonoo as to tbs unsatisfactory state of tho aooounts, and most of them beiog businessmen thoy would bo able to satisfy tbomselvcs on that point, Aoousod could Dot set up ignorance as an excuse; thoy were businessmen iu business, and not Ike people living from hand-to mouth, or wheeling a coafcermoDger’d barrow. Ifi was necessary that businessmen should koep tboir books so that their financial position would be aecertaiDablo. Thoy must keep bocks suoh as would be kept in tho ordinary way of business.

After twenty minutes’ retirement the jury brought iu a verdict of guilty against both defendants, with a recommendation that leniency be extondod to John Smith, owlog to tho business beiog in the hands of his partner. Mr Finn asked that the Probation Aot be extended to them, and that defendants bo remanded till to day without furthor bail.

Tho remand was granted.