SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2602, 9 August 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, Atottst 8, [Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.] PBATOTOKHT BAHKBUPXOT. The following evidence in the case of Nathaniel Vale, charged with fraudulent bankruptcy, was taken yesterday after we went to press : Henry Horne deposed to having visited the promises of the prisoner. He saw cattle in a paddock adjoining the prisoner’s residence, but afterwards they had gone. In cross-examination —The witness stated that he was not aware who the cattle he had seen belonged to. The stock in the shop of the prisoner was not secreted in any way. Jemima Merrin deposed that on the 25th March the prisoner met her in Precoe’s sale yards, and asked her if she wished to bny a cow, as he had one in the pens. Eventually witness bought the cow for £8 10s, Cross examined—Prisoner (signed the receipt either N. or Nat. Vale. Francis Merrin, son of the last witness, gave corroborative evidence as to the purchase of the cow.

John Martin deposed to having bought a oow from the prisoner on April 7th for £3. The prisoner said the oow came from Eaiapoi. There were two or three other cows on the premises of prisoner when witness bought the cow. Prisoner gave witness the receipt produced, which purported to be a sale of a oow by prisoner, on behalf of a Mr Jones or James.

O. H. Parker deposed that, acting as bailiff for Mr Spackman, solicitor for the trustee, Mr T. B. Ornig, he seized certain

goods on tho premises of the prisoner, and had them removed to Mr Alport’s. He valued tho goods at £2l. Tho goods comprised the ordinary stock of a wheelwright. The list produced was the one made by wit ness. There were two pairs of wheels and one pair unfinished amongst the goods seized. Cross-examined—A distraint for rent was made on the 16th February, the day before seizing on account of Mr Bpackman, and the same goods distrained upon. A third seizure of the same goods was made in May, when they were sold, realising only about £7 10a. VVm. Lancaster deposed to seizing certain goods on the 17th February. The goods were valued by witness at about £lB. A horse and cart was seized by witness at the house of the prisoner. Ho told witness the

horse and cart belonged to Mr Knight, and the latter subsequently claimed it. Charles John Innes deposed to the prisoner entering two carts for sale at Preeoe’s yards on April 15th. One was sold for £l2, and the other not. The prisoner removed the other cart the same night. Prisoner received a cheque for £H 10a on the following Tuesday. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr MoConnel took the objection that the case must fail, as there was no evidence as to before whom the declaration was taken, or who it was made by. There was no evidence that the prisoner was the person making the declaration of insolvency. His Honor said that Mr Hobbs, before whom the declaration had been made, could easily be procured. After some discussion, Mr MoConnel withdrew his objection on this ground. The case for the defence was then opened.

Mr MoConnel submitted that on the first count there was nothing to go to the jury. The section said that there mmt be a delivery to the trustee, which implied a request for such delivery. There had been no evidence led to show that a request had been made by the trustee to the prisoner to deliver up all goods within his custody and control, as provided by the section. His Honor said that it appeared there was no direction on the part of the trustee to deliver up the goods as provided by the section. Mr MoConnel went on to submit that further, there was no evidence to show that the cattle had come iuto the possession of the prisoner before the filing of the schedule. On the second count he should also submit that there was no evidence to prove that an amended statement had not been filed.

His Honor pointed out that the Registrar had stated that so other statements had been filed.

Mr MoConnel then went on to deal with the fourth count, charging the prisoner with having concealed the property with intent to defraud, contending that there was no evidence to show that any concealment bad been used. On the contrary, the goods had been seized three or four times over and at last sold. Further, there was no evidence to show that the cows sold by the prisoner were in his possession at the time of filing. These were sold in March and April, and the declaration was filed in January. His Honor thought there was a ease to go to the jury that the cows sold by the prisoner were in the possession of the prisoner at the time of the filing. As to the first count, he thought that if the prisoner did not give np the properly ha committed an offence. He did not think the evidence supported the fourth count, and the third also would not hold water. Mr MoOounel would still submit as to the first count that there must be a request on the part of the trustees for delivery of the property, the debtor not being bound without to deliver it to him, that was in this case for the prisoner to put the goods on a cart and deliver them to the trustee of his own motion.

His Honor thought it would be as well to let the case go to the jury, and reserve the points raised on the various counts by the counsel for the defence. After some discussion between his Honor and the counsel it was decided to reserve the points. Hr MoConnel proceeded to call evidence for tho defence, which he intimated was that the cows had come into tho possession of the prisoner after the filing ; that the cart sold at Preecs's was so sold by request of one Knight, who received the money ; also that the prisoner had purchased spokes, Ac,, after fiiing in order to carry on hia business. The evidence called for the defence was as follows:

Annie Eliza Darollo, stepdaughter of tbo prisoner, deposed that she had never known him to have cattle of his own. He used to sell cattle for other people. Cross-examined by Mr Fisher—About the 23rd January prisoner had one oow and two calves. Witness had never seen Horne near

their premises. The oow and two calves on the premise* on the 23rd January belonged to witness. Bho had purchased the cows with her own money. The cow was sold by witness at Mr George’s sale at his place. The calves were there still ; they wore quite young. Gross examined by Mr MoConnel—Beyond the two calves and the cow there was no other cattle in the paddock at that time. Henry Knight deposed to having purchased stock of all kinds from the prisoner. The trap and horse seized by the bailiff belonged to witness, and he obtained it back again, Susequcntly be authorised Tale to take the cart to Preece’s yard, and sell it, which was done, end witness received £ll 10s from prisoner on account of the sale. Priooner had no other cart at this time that witness was aware of.

Cross-examined by Mr Fisher—Witness bought the trap and horse on January 4th for £2O. The sale was a genuine one. Thomas Henry Jonas deposed to having exchanged a roan cow with prisoner for another one and 60s to boot. He had never seen the 60s. Prisoner brought the cow from Kaiapoi Island. This was in February, and prisoner asked him to bring a cow down from Tiaoh's.

Cross-examined by Mr Fisher—Witness saw a red and whPe cow and one young calf at the prisoner’s place at the end of March. Daniel Manhiro deposed to having supplied the prisoner with certain goods from Messrs Montgomery and Co, in February last. This closed the case for the defence, and Mr MoOonnel addressed the jury. His Honor summed up, requesting the jury to find a separate verdict on each count. The jury retired at 6 p,m., and at 830 p.m. returned a verdict as follows; On No. 1 count —For failing to deliver up to the trustee the property mentioned with intent to defraud. “ Not Guilty.” No. 2 —The omission from the statement of an account of the assets with intent to defraud, the omission being material. “ Guilty.” No. 3—The omission to discover the assets to the trustee. “ Not Guilty.” No. 4—Concealment of the assets, being of

the value of £lO or upwards. ” Not Guilty. ” His Honor, at the request of Mr MoOonnel, reserved the points raised by him in the oourse of the trial for the opinion of the Court of Appeal.

Mr Fisher asked hie Honor if he could make an order granting the costs of the prosecution out of the estate.

Hia Honor said he was not aware of any Act giving him power to make such an order. Mr MoOonnel eaid it was quite the reverse. There was a Section making it necessary to obtain the consent of tho Court to prosecute.

Mr Fisher said he had been led to believe by his solicitor in the lower Court that hia Honor had such power. His Honor said that the proper course for Mr Fisher to have taken was to have gone to tho Bankruptcy Court, and obtained an order for the trustee to prosecute, when tho costs would have been defrayed by the State. This was what had not been done. As it was he had no power to grant the request. The prisoner was then admitted to bail in the same amount as before to appear to receive the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

CIVIL SITTINGS. This Day. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams and a common Jury.) The Court re-opened at 10 a.m. ABGTI.B V OOBBBTT. For plaint.ff, Mr Wilding ; for defendant, Mr Garriok, In this case Argyle was plaintiff, and Corbett defendant. The plaintiff sought to obtain possession of a section of land under tho following circumstances: —ln September, 1875, the plaintiff was working on tho farm of the defendant at Ashburton Forks. The plaintiff alleged that it was agreed between them that defendant should, as agent of the plaintiff, purchase the piece of laud in question. _ At the time of the purchase the plaintiff had a claim of some £3O for wages as a farm laborer. The defendant purchased the laud now in dispute for £4O, and it was alleged that ha wrongfully inserted his own name in the license to occupy instead of that of the plaintiff. The latter was not at that time aware of the insertion of pla ntiff’g name in the license, and he entered into possession. About 1881 a qi a rel took place between the parties, the plaintiff having is the meantime made many improvements in the land. The defendant than gave plaintiff notice to vacate tho land, which he !; olaimed under the license. The plaintiff now sought to obtain a decree for taking of accounts between the parties as to principal and interest due on purchase of the land, plaintiff expressing hia willingness to pay the sum found to be due ; that on payment of such sum the defendant should be decreed to execute to the plaintiff a transfer of the title to tho land in question. The defendant denied all the material allegations of the declaration, and for a further plea alleged thot the land had been purchased on his own account, the plaintiff being his tenant only. Mr Wilding opened the case for the plaintiff and culled evidence. [Left sitting.]