Failure to Disclose All His Assets Alleged

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 21, 26 January 1937, Page 3

Failure to Disclose All His Assets Alleged

BANKRUPT BUILDER SENT FOR TRIAL. Allegations that he failed to disclose to the Deputy Official Assignee all hi 3 property when he filed a petition in bankruptcy on December 17, 1935, were made against Frederick John Duckworth, builder, of Palmerston North, when he appeared before Messrs W. Low Black and W. G. Ashworth, J.P.’s, in the Palmerston North Magistrate’s Court yesterday, charged with three breaches of the Bankruptcy Act. He pleaded not guilty and was counselled by Mr G. I. McGregor. Mr 11. R. Cooper conducted the prosecution. All three charges were covered by the one set of circumstances and were in respect of an interest accused was stated to have had in a Dodge motorcar. Frank C. Litchfield, deputy official assignee, in evidence, stated that Duckworth’s statement of assets contained no reference to the motor-car which witness subsequently took possession of after paying £6 4s owing by way of a lien on the vehicle. lie then advertised the car for sale and secured a tender of £75 for it. Reginald Meatyard, company secretary, stated that for a considerable time prior to his bankruptcy, accused owed his firm a considerable sum of money. Witness was at a private meeting of creditors when reference was made to tho car which Duekworth declared had been seized to meet a small debt. Mr McGregor objected to this evidence as it related to a meeting of creditors prior to the bankruptcy and had no relation to the present charges which referred to the actual bankruptcy. Mr Cooper said the private meeting of creditors had taken place but a few days before Duckworth filed and what accused had declared was said with the intention of deceiving the creditors. It was all part of the alleged swindle. Mr McGregor: Until the bankruptcy took place Duckworth was under no legal obligation whatever. Mr Black: That is tho opinion I have, but we will allow the evidence and note the objection. Robert Porter, of Palmerston North, general manager of a motor firm, told tho Court that accused had acquired a second-hand Dodge car through another linn in which witness had been interested, on May 8, 1931, under a hire-pur-chase agreement, but early in 1935 had got into arrears with tho payments. The car was then placed in the hands of witness’ firm for sale, it being ar- • •anged that the firm should take from < the- proceeds the ainouut owing to them. ;

Later the sum of £6 4s was received from the D.0.A., this being the amount due under the lien. Accused did not have the use of the car after it was placed in the hands of witness’ firm for sale. Victor George Clift, of Palmerston North, motor trader, said that in August, 1935, he had inspected a Dodge car in the garage of the previous witness and had t ten authorised to effect a sale if he could. Witness had a hazy recollection that accused had later called on him and asked him to endeavour to sell his car. Witness had replied that he would do wliat he could. Evidence was given by Roy William Priest, public accountant and auditor, who said he had been appointed liquidator of Fowler and Porter, Ltd., in October, 1935. No car answering to the description of that concerned in the case had been in the possession of the company, nor was one entered in the books. Accused was shown on tho books as owing the company £6 4s, which witness later received from the D.O.A. This concluded the case for the prosecution, whereupon Mr McGregor submitted that no evidence had been adduced to support the charges, and that accused should be discharged. Accused had forfeited his interest in the car, aud it had become the property of Fowler and Porter, Ltd. * Mr Cooper claimed that the car still belonged to accused when it was returned to the garage. The evidence showed that arrangements had been made with Fowler aud Porter to sell the vehicle and to retain from the proceeds the amount that was owing. Tho Bench announced that they did not feel justified in withholding the case from a jury, and accused, pleading not guilty, was committed to the next sittings of tho Supreme Court at Palmerston North for trial. Bail was allowed in accused's own recognisance of £SU and one surety of a similar amount.