SUPREME COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIV, Issue 9, 11 January 1881, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

[Before .His Honor the Chief Justice.} [In Bankruptcy.] lie Thomas Stocker Wymond, At the close of Mr Thompson's evidence yesterday afternoon Mr Fell addressed the Court, arguing that the bankrupt must have known full well that in taking the goods that were seized at Cbristchurch he was holping himself to that to which he had no right. On the point that the bankrupt had made misrepresentations for the purpose of obtaining further credit he contended that there was ample evidence that Wymond must have known his real position at the time of presenting his balance sheet. The mere fact of his having to rtsort to forced sales to meet his most pressing needs was proof of this. It was also clear that upon the strength of these misrepresentations he bad obtained both goods and money, for surely Patterson and Co. would never have been such fools aa to give him £2000 in goods and £1000 in cash bad they known that he was actually insolvent. His eystem of trading too was not such as was usually tolerated when brought under the notice of Bankruptcy Courts. He knew nothing, or at least pretended t* know nothing, of the state of his affairs, and whenever pressed by a creditor resorted to selling goods at a low price to meet the demands made upon him. Such utter recklessness combined with his personal extravagance was quite sufficient to disen title him to the relief he sought from the Court. Mr Pitt argued that Wymond's creditors were perfectly well aware of the state of his affairs. They had it in evidence that Patterson & Co. had to advance him money to pay the duty on £2000 worth of goods they had sold him, so that they certainly could not have been in ignorance of bis being pressed for money, The fact was that he was crippled by having paid off in the course of two years no less a sum than £9000 to hia principal creditors, and to do this he had to sell at a loss. That Sargoods knew his position was clearly shown by the fact that while they were letting him have goods with one hand they were cueing him with the other. Thompson, too, had been shown the Btock lists, and everything was made clear to him. On the whole the charge of obtaining credit by misrepresentations must break down completely. Mr Pitt then spoke at considerable length on the removal of the goods to Chriatchurch, alleging that there was no ground whatever for believing that Wymond had any fraudulent intentions. The whole thiDg was done in the most open manner, and if he had been removing his goods from his house to another in Nelson nothing would ' have been said about it, but because they were taken to Chriatchurcb, where they were quite as easily to be got at by the trustees as here, all these pharges were made. It was

not, and could not be, suggested that Wytnond bad retained any tnone^. , 'This was shown by the difficulty 1 he b,ad iv raising sufficient to meet Southern's and this he (Sir Pitt) might say was the most btameable of all the bankrupt's action?, appearing as ifc did that he was giving preference to an individual creditor. It was true that the creditors had refused to recommend the discharge, but it must be remembered that nearly all the power was in the hands of Thompson and Southern. lie believed that it was a great mistake io Ifeave the working of the Act with the creditors, who alrtic3t Invariably went wrong in one direction or another. Either they were too easy, or'they went to ihe extreme o,f antagonism to the debtor. The latter has been done in this ease. On the day (hat Wymond was to app?y for his discharge at the meeting of creditors a tele- { gram appeared in the papers 6tating that he was to be prosecuted for issuing a fraudulent balance sheet j again when he was about to npply to the Court .mother telegram stated that a bill of indictiaent was to be, preferred to the Grand Jury ; then the Wellington press had been utilised against him, aad papers containing hostile articles bad been circulated amongst the creditors. The policy of the Aot he took to be this, that if the bankrupt diseovsred his property to his creditors he Was entitled to his discharge, and if be had committed any ofifenee under the Fraudulent debtors Act he muet take his trialj but there waa, ,no evidence of this of of his having withheld any information He condemned the conduct of the Trustees in the matter of the tenders, and concluded by saying that although, he might have overtraded, the bankrupt bad displayed gicr>' diligence and immense energy in bis business, and had done nothing but was right and fair. His Honor said it was clearly indicated that the Legislature regained the Supreme Court as a Ooun of appeal from the Creditors. He was hot prepared to say whether the creditors ought or ought not to bave fixed the efctreHio limit, but iliere #as S'wftyg a tendency that way amongst those wbo iyere not accustomed to pass sentence. With regard to the application to prosecute it was for him to say whether a case had been made but ftbd tn doing .so to my as little as possible to prejudice the case when going before a jury. As Mr Pitt had ably urged there was much to be said in explanation of the bankrupt's conducf, but it was not for him to say whether that explanation met the case. It was purely a question for a jury to decide, and in his opinion there was amply sufficient to go to a jury. Wifh regard to the charge of obtaining goods by misrepresentation he thought it high'y improbable that a prosecution would succeed with regard to the goods obtained from Patterson & Co., but in dealing with the case his mind was principally directed to the trnnsoclions with Thompson and Shannon. The other charge was more definite. The bankrupt hid obtained from the store something like £500 worth of goods in seven or eight months, about £100 worth being taken very shortly before his failure It was not urged that he did tbis with any intention to defraud, and therefore the casa was nothing like so bad as it at first sight appeared. But it was the bankrupt's duty to place those things on his list of assets, and that he had not done, and he bad given no information with regard to them, being led into this, as it was said, by the deed of arrangement. Still there was the fact that he had removed these articles without the consent of the creditors, and consequently he (the Judge) thought this waa a case for a jury. He had then no hesitation in giving his consent to a prosecution for two classes of offence, one, removing gooda the property of the creditors, and the other obtaining goods by misrepresentation. That being the case, what was he to do with regard to the application for a discbarge ? He felt that he had to be very careful in speaking of this lest he should in any way prejudice that other tribunal by which the charges he bad referred to would bave to be dealt with. The general conduct of the bankrupt had been ftuch that if he had been called upon to deal with it, irrespective of the alleged offences ! under the Fraudulent Debtors Act, and of i the creditors recommendation to refuse his discharge, he should have been disposed to refuse it for twelve mouths. He would | therefore now adjourn the application for | twelve months, and tbis would leave it in I the hands of the creditors, whether the prosecution was successful or not, if they afterwards came to the conclusion that three years was too long a time, to recommend that it be granted at an earlier period. Mr Pitt : Do I understand that the debtor may apply again at the end of twelve [ months ? His Honor : Yes. I The Court then adjourned.