POLICE COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 37, 7 October 1871, Page 14

POLICE COURT.

Thursday, October 5. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., R.M.) deeaulting bankrupt. Matthias Bloch, recently arrested on a charge of absconding from Tasmania, with a view to defraud his creditors, was brought up on remand. Inspector Atcheson said that the prisoner was charged on the information of George Horne under a clause of the Debtors Act in force in Tasmania. The follownig is the clause in question “ If any person who is adjudged a bankrupt, or has his affairs liquidated by arrangement after the presentation of a bankruptcy petition against him, or the commencement of the liquidation, or within four months before such presentation or commencement, quits Tasmania, and tabes with him, or attempts or makes preparation for quitting Tasmania, and taking with him any part of his property, to the amount of £2O or upwards, which ought to be by law divided amongst his creditors, he shall (unless the.jury is satisfied that he had no intent to defraud) be guilty of felony, punishable with imprisonment for a term not [exceeding four years with or without hard labor.” He was prepared with evidence to prove the identity of the prisoner with that of the person mentioned in the information, which was as follows : —“ The information and complaint on oath of George Horne, at present of Launceston, Tasmania, gentleman, who saith —“ Henry Bloch and Matthias Bloch, of Latrobe, in the Island of Tasmania, traders, were duly declared bankrupt by John Wliiteford, of Launceston, Commissioner for Bankruptcy for Launceston, and John Francis Hobkirk, of Launceston aforesaid, gentleman, and myself, were duly appointed the trustees under the said bankruptcy. I charge the said Henry Bloch and Matthias Bloch with misdemeanor, under the provisions of the Act of Parliament, 34th Vic., No. 33, with not having, to the best of their belief, discovered to the trustees administering their estate for the benefit of their creditors, all their property, real and personal, and how, and to whom, and for what consideration, and when they disposed of any part thereof, except such part as has been disposed of in the ordinary way of their trade, or laid out in the ordinary expenses of their families. Secondly—With not having delivered up to the trustees all books, documents, papers,[ and writings, in their custody, or under their control, relating to their property or affairs. Thirdly—With having within four months next, before the declaration of bankruptcy, fraudulently removed their property to upwards of the value of £lO. Fourthly—With having made material omissions in certain statements relating to their affairs. Fifthly—With having, after the declaration of bankruptcy, attempted to account for their property by fictitious losses or expenses. Sixthly—With having, within two months, before their declaration of bankruptcy, being then traders, pledged or disposed of otherwise than in the ordinary way, of their trade property, which they obtained on credit, and have not paid for. The prisoner was understood to say that tne case had already been disposed of in Launceston. Inspector Atcheson asked for a remand to Tasmania, and said he was prepared with evidence to support the demand. He calledJames Propsting, who said—l am district constable for Launceston, Tasmania. I know the prisoner. He was in connection with his brother, and was a trader at Latrobe trading under the firm of Henry Bloch & Co. They carried on business at Latrobe, in the Mersey district, as general traders. I am aware that the firm became insolvent about two months since, or rather about five or six weeks since ; criminal proceedings were taken against prisoner and his brother in the Police Couit. They were charged with illegally making away and disposing of property for the purpose of defrauding their creditors. Prisoner did not appear to the summons, but the partner did. Prisoner absconded some days before the summons was heard ; his partner was fully committed to take his trial, and now awaits trial. The warrant produced was then issued, and bears the signature of Thomas Mason, stipendiary magistrate of Launceston. I was piesent when the information produced was sworn, and identify the signature as the stipendiary magistrate. The prisoner, on being asked if he wished to cross-examine the witness, said that tbeie was only one mistake. The firm in Melbourne was IT. Bloch and Co; that in Tasmania, H* and M. Bloch. Inspector Atcheson said this was ail the evidence, and again asked for a remand. The prisoner said that there was one thing he objected to, and that was that he should be considered a criminal. He was not known here, and that was why he did not like it. He

wanted to say that the firm of H. Bloch and Co. was a Melbourne firm ; that in Tasmania, Henry and Matthias Block. The latter firm was not indebted one farthing, and H. Bloch and Co. only were insolvent. The whole proceeding had been taken by Melbourne creditors, who had brought the charge on their own responsibility. . The Magistrate remarked that the prisoner would have an opportunity of making these statements when called on for his defence in Tasmania. There was sufficient to warrant him in remanding him to Tasmania, to have his case dealt with by the authorities there. The prisoner was accordingly remanded, and sailed by the Alhambra, in charge of Detective Propsting.