KYLSANT’S APPEAL

Hokitika Guardian, 3 August 1931, Page 5

KYLSANT’S APPEAL

JUDGE’S STRICTURES. United Press Association —By Electric Telegraph—Copyright. J LONDON, July Si. Sir J. Sinioil gave notice of the appeal filter sentence was passed. The jury was absent fur three hours. Justice Wright, kumining up, said that tUo practice of keeping secret reserves had been followed by many concerns of high standing, hut- the system might he subject to serious abuse, and used to cover up irregularities and negligence. It would' he a serious tiling if it became known to the world that the balance Sheets of the English companies could not be relied on. Referring to the prospectus, Justice Wright said that as a statement of the Company's real position it left much to be desired. Letter by letter it was accurate. It could only he fraud if the jury were satisfied there was criminal intent to concoct a false misleading document. Morland’s position was different. He had no motive for deceit. Justice AVright, in sentencing Kylsant, said: “You have held the highest positions and had anj honourable career, hut the offence of which you have been found guilty is very grave, especially in a commercial community, and the fact that in the prospectus you issued you invited the public to subscribe money. In view of your past career, the sentence I pass may be the least part of the punishment before you.” The costs in the Kylsant case are believed to be the heaviest for years to both sides, owing to the detailed evidence and the documentary searches. It is estimated that the defence alone cost £50,000.