PALMERSTON NORTH.

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 47, 23 March 1878, Page 2

PALMERSTON NORTH.

Thursday, 21sx March, 1878: (Before R. Ward, Esq., T&M j and Messrs*. Dairy tnple and Monrad^.B.P.) - CONBPIRIN& TO DEFEATED,: Henry Fisher, of Palmerston, store*, keeper ; and Walter Coker, of the sameplace, storemari, were m Formed against that they, on or about the; first day 6tOctober, 1877, at Palinersfcon aforesaid,, did unlawfully conspire, combine, and', confederate together to cheat and 1 defraud the creditors of the said HenryFisher, of divers goods disposed of bythe said Henry Fisher to the said WalterCoker, other than m the ordinary wayv^ of itrade, being an indictable offence. sMir Hutchison appeared for tnfe--prosecution, - oil behalf of Robert MV Keeling, tnistee m; the estate. Messrs. Maclean and Cash were pre-. sent m the. Court and watched the proceedings oh behalf of the .defendants,, although not appearing for them. Mr Hutchison briefly opened the caseby retailing the circumstances underwhich the alleged fraud was sought to* ba accomplished, and in order to study: the convenience of sotrie of the witnesses,; went someyrhat out of the usual order o£ prooedure. The first witness called was= George Hartopp Elliot Warburton,: solicitor of the Supreme Court, who gaveevidence of having^witnessed the signature of Henry Fisher to the affidavit and exhibits attached made by HenryFisher and Walter Coker.-, : Charles Lendrick ; Maclean, solicitorof the Supreme Court of Nevv Zealand,, testified to having witnessed the signature of Henry Fisher to the declaration of insolvency made on the 22nd January •1878 ; also that of Walter Coker to a. deed of arrangement made undar/ the Debtor and Creditors' Act,]lß76, on the24th January 1878. ::: Thomas Eiohards Cash, deposed ; I ani a solicitor of the Supreme Court of NewZealand. I took the affidavit produced,, of the defendant Waiter ( .'oker, with, the exhibits attached. L - James Merrington Greig,, deposed t I am manager of the branch at Palmers^ ton orthe Bank of Australasia. The defendant Henry Fisher kept an account. with the bank last year, and. was m the^' ha^ifc of lodging bills with us for coU lectipn a-nd discount. The .three^proniissory notes produced were nevfef presented to me. They do not arfpear tohave been folded. From recdllection^ and on reference to my ledger I can saythat on the 27th of .March last a cheque for £30 was paid#in^to the oredit o£ Henry Fisher #by W& lter , CokeK Walter Coker kept an account at the bank commencin|fii*frpm 25th. October, 3577> Fram ' - the bpeningofthe apCQunt to the date of the signing;o£ the dee.l of assignment, on the 21st ofJanuary, thai total amount of pay menta was £120? The operations of Henry Fi she r be t ween October an d the closingof his account were ab^ut £255, of^

which £50 was represented by a bill from Mr Dyack m favor of Fisher. Francis Loud- *n, deposed: lam a merchant carrying on business m Foxton. I know defendants, Fisher and Coker. I had business transactions with Henry Fisher, principally m- the month of October, m last year. * He was m debt to me to the.extcntof £1159 los 6d, £100 of which represented cash lent. My first transaction with him was m July, and to the amount of £162. The other transactions were subsequent to that date, and m the latter portion of last year. I have had conversations with Fisher, both m Palmerston and Foxton, relative to his business. The first was with reference to his having erected a large building m Palmerston, and his intention to borrow money on it, but at that time he did not say he was about to relinquish business. After hearing of his having disposed of his business, I had a conversation with him at Palmerston. He told me that he had disposed of the stock to Coker. This took place about the 15th of December. I had learned from Coker on the 30th of November that he had purchased Fisher's business, and as he was about, having some transactions with me, I asked him on what conditions he had purchased it, so that it might guide me m giving him credit. I was present at the first meeting of creditors of Henry Fisher, held at Wanganui, on the 31st of January, at which Mr Zohrab was Jippointed chairman. The debtor, Henry 'Fisher, was present, and was examined on the occasion. I recognise his signature to the three, pages of minutes proRobert North Keeling deposed : I am the trustee m the insolvent estate of Henry Fisher. I accepted the office on the 2nd of February, 1878. Mr Maclean, as amicus ourieß, wished to , have the • " Government Gazette " produced, m which Mr Keeling's appointment wa* gazetted, but finally waived the objection. Examination continued. — I recognise flip signatures of Henry Fisher and Walter Coker to the various portions of the documents signed. I saw them attaoh their respective signatures, which i they did voluntarily. I am acting as a trustee under a deed of arrangement, j In that capacity I have ascertained that ' Henry Fisher, at the date of his bank- ' ruptcy, had goods — eonsisringof clocks | — to the value of £14 or £15. He had no other stock, m the ordinary- accept, ation of the term, but I found stock-in-trade m the possession of the other defendant. The debts of -Fisher amounted to £2960 11s 7d, including /£BIB for principal and interest Tinder the mortgage, of that £32 had J»een epent m- building, and £200 overdraft, from the Bank of New Zealand, Foxtqiii^ leaving a residue of over £1900, representing stock. The stock referred to •was rented hy Coker from Fisher. I have ascertained that Coker has never paid any rent for the premises. There was no entry of rent. He commenced buisness somewhere about the latter end of last year, Jbefore which he had been assistant of Mr Fisher; He had not to my knowledge, been m business previously for himself. I found goods upon which T have since realised £150 at auction, but which I had estimated at £250 at cost price. The book debts ■were about £350 at retail prices, but the amount would be considerably less at cost prices. I made the estimation this year. I have not been able to find anything to represent the difference between £1960, and the £150 stock, £350 book debts, and £120 cash m bank to Fisher's account. I am not awa:e that Fisher ever carried on business m the new store. I rather think that Colter's name appea ed over the door on its completion. I have not been able to ,do anything with the three bil l s pro- ' f!uecd, and hold them to be of no value. I obtained from, Coker, m my capacity of trustee, the documents produced, consisting of accounts for £37 3s 6d, and £109 4d, both dated on the 24th of September, 1877, and receipted November, Ist 1877 ; one for £48 6s 9d, dated. 12th October, 1877, receipted on 12th October, 1877, as paid by promissory note due 18th April > 1878. I have been unable to find the "note referred to. I also an account, £22 0s lOd.'reoeipted October, as paid by promissory note due July 18th 1878, which note I have been also unable to find ; also one for £81 0s Bd, dated October 22nd 1877, receipted by Henry Fisher on October, 22nd 1877, as paid by promissory note due January 25th 1879, but could not find any such note ; also Messrs Loudon's invoice altered, being dated 27th October, and receipted on 27th October as paid by promissory note, due 30th April, 1879, for £17 Is sd. There was no such note. I recognise the hand-' ■■wriiirig of all the accounts to be that of "Walter Goker, and the signatures as these of Henry Fisher. Those receiptswere produced at a meeting of creditors < en the 19th "of February, at Palmerston. I have had considerable experience m the way of trading and I do not consider ihe three bills' given by Coker to Fisher as a consideration for the transfer of stock is a transaction m the ordinary way of trade/ Coker*s estate realised £150, which is less than the separate debts against Coker, besides, which there were book debts, but the principal were against Maoris. I think them worth about £150. Francis London recalled : I remember seeing Mr Coker about the latter end of November m Foxton. He referred on that occasion to having purchased Fisher's stock for £700 or £750, lie was not-certain which. He said he had given bills at- six, twelve, eighteen, twenty-four, and thirty-six months, and infor jed me that both he and Mr Fisher <were on their way to Wellington. With to another matter, Coker said tlnts Fisher would require renewals for the "amount of the bills which were over and above the £600 deposited, lfaving a (balance of £559 los 4d. On or about the 15th of December I saw the two defendants at Palmerslon. I asked Fisher if Coker had authority to act as' his agent with regard to the renewal of the bills, and he said yes ; that he was just the same as himself, that he kept Iris books. and transacted, business for him. I recognise the invoice produced asonoof mine, made out by my clerk. I observe thaiit is.dated^the 27th October, 1877. The writing on the receipt stamp bears a date corresponding with that of the invoice. It is possible that an invoice could be

written m Foxton, and receipted on the same day m Palmerston, but it is only possible, not probable. The invoice is apparently not completed, appearing to have been clipped off, and a portion only left remaining. ' Joseph Nicholas Flower, deposed: I I am manager of the Bank of New Zealand at Fox-ion. I had occasion to visit .Palmerston frequently at the end of last September, and the beginning of October, during which time I had many opportunities of seeing Mr Fisher on matters of business. He did not intimate to. mo then that he intended to make any change m his business. The earliest conversation I remember having with him was on my visit to Palmers! on to open an agency. I was at that lime renting a place from Mr Fisher for a branch bank."' Mr Fisher told me he thought he had a good thing on m the businesses he was going into, said businesses being baking, store, and a : temperance hotel. He said Walter was going to manage the store, and he would look after the other two, T^th en asked him who Walter was? when he replied that it was Coker. The shop was open at the time, but I do not think there was any stock m it, I have since had other conversations with bothjthe defendants. I remember reference having been made subsequently by Mr Fisher to Mr Loudon. I was aware at the time that Mr Loudon was a large creditor, one of the largest, I believe. Theremark alluded to was, Fisher said that he would make it hot or warm for Loudon. The bank is also a creditor of Fisher's for jppAfiy^dvanaad^.^ This concluded the" evidence "foruthe prosecution and tJiere being ho defence, The Court adjourned, and after an absence of about quarter of an hour returned; when the chairman intimated that both prisoners would bo committed for trial at the next Criminal Sittings at Wanganui, bail to be allowed m the amount of two sureties of £100 each, and the defendants jn £200. Separate bails m each case. CIVIIi CASES. Corporation v. J. R. Somerville. Claini for 14s lOd rates. Defendant had paid 6s 4d into Court, and judgment was given for 8s 4d, with 10s costs. Corporation v, Porscras. Claim, 6s 6d. Adjourned for proof of service of summons. Corporation v. Nickelkon, Claim, 6s for rates. Defendant stated that he. had sold the land for which he was rated two years ago, but as it appeared that he had not complied with the Act m giving notice thereof, judgment was given for the amount with 13s costs. Corporation v. J. G. Anstie. . Claim, £1 13s 9d. Adjourned for proof of service of summons. 3 Corporation v. Thomas Frazer. Claim, 2s Id. Adjourned for proof of service of summons. > • Coi-poration v. George Etonne. Claim, 2s 9d. Adjourned for proof of service of summons. Corporation v. Andrew Taylor. Claim, 6s 6d. No service "of sum« mons. Adjourned. Corporation v. Atthur Sheriff. Claim, 2s 6d. Adjourned' for proof of service of summons. Corporation v. Thomas Wagg. Claim, 3s lid. Adjourned for~proof of service of summons. P. Maxwell v. Macdonnell. Claim, £10. Judgment by consent. Thomas Wray v. H. M. Cramond. Claim, £7 2s 6d. Defendant telegraphed for an adjournment on account of the illness of his wife, which was granted, plaintiff to receive 15s expenses. F. J. Taylor v. Hori Pauroa. t Claim, £3 10s. Defendant paid £3 since the issue of the .summons, and judgment was given for the 10s and 6s costs. T, Moffatfc v. John Franklin. Claim, £10 16s 7d. . Judgment by default, with costs. Joseph Poad v. Richter. Claini, £5 10s. There was no appear* ance of the plaintiff, who was non-suited with costs. Robert Mackie v. Alexander Sehujtze. Claim, £1 7s. No appearance of defendant, and judgment was given by default. John Morris v. C. Tricklebank. Claim, 10s. Verdict for amount claimed, with costs.