MANY MISTAKES

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 383, 18 November 1932, Page 5

MANY MISTAKES

(Press. Assn.-

BANKRUPT'S ERRORS TAUPO CONTRACTOR BEFORE SUPREME COURT FOR NEGLECTPRISONER ACQUITTED.

-By Telegraph — Copyrlght).

Hamilton, Thursday. The alleged neglect of George- Chase; a hankrupt truck contractor, of Taupo to furnish full particulars of his business affairs when requested to 'do so by the Officlal Assigne'e was the basis of a charge laid against him before Mr. Justice Herdman and a jury in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, lastevening. Mr. J. D. Davys, of Rotorua, appeared for the prisoner. In opening, Mr. H'. T. Gillies, the Crown Solicitor, stated that the "'accused got into difficulties with a inotor carrying business in the Taupo district and was made bankrupt on a creditor's petition on June 17. Ac-* cording to the hankruptcy .laws it was then his duty to give full details of his assets and property when requested to do so. Instead of doirig this the prisoneit had failed to reply to any communication from the Official Assignee with the exception of a telegram sent by the prisoner stating that he would furnish the returhs.in i few days. Counsel contendeil that ' while the case was complete it had . to be shown that prisoner had no intent to defraud before -he c'ould he acquitted. That onus was on th'e de- . fence. Wilfrcd Lawrence Roberts, clerk employed in the offieia) aSsignea's ol-ice, Hamilton in evidence detaijed "arious eommunications which his effk'e had had with bankrupt. Chase 'md failed to answer several requests •'or details. Finally, Mr. S. L. Pater--on, S.M. issued a wai'rant at Rotorua for Ghase's arrest and defendapt finally attended at the assignee's cfiiee. Many Misfortunes. Glving evidence, the prisoner said he was supporting his wife, four children, grandmother and sister ahd he had never previously been before eoiud charged with a crhninal offence. His father had been burned to death :n a motor-truck and had left pidsoh'er to pay parthership debts amounting to --•'4. Another truck was seized and he was sued for the whole of the dability on the two trucks; this caused his hankruptcy. On his first tidp to Haiaiiton he brought his books of a'ccount and they were not required.' A i'ortnight later he returned to Hamilton, hut lost his books going baek home.

Burning of Truck. Witness went on to tell how he waited all day at Taupo for a meeting, hut nohody arrived. He did not fill up the forms because he did not know how to do so. He had received no proceeds from the running of the .ruck by his friend. These proceeds had gona to the insurance company which held the hire purchase agreement. He was nowhere near the truck when it was burned. He earned barely £2 a week splitting posts and eould hardly keep himself ahd his dependants on that amount. He mzssed the sitting of ihe Court at Rotorua through his truck breaking clown. He then soiight legal advice in Hamilton and had' his books prepared for the Official Assignee. He emphasised that he had received no money whatevar from debtors since the date of hankruptcy. He had received £10 from the insurance company in eonnection with the .truck which he handed to the Official As- '* signee. Cross-examined, witness admitted that ^ he had not asked anyone the locahty of the Assignee's office in Hamilton. He had not advertised for tne loss of his books because hje never thought about it. His Honour: Did you put .it in the hands of the poliee?— -No, that's where I made a mistake. His Honour: %Vhy did you not send the OiBcial Assignee a reply? — That v/as where I made a mistake. (Laughter). © His Honour Sums UpIn summing up, His Honour directed the jury to bring in a verdict of not guilty on the first count of the indxetment, that prisoner did not de- ■ liver up co the Official Assignee his property. He was not at all sure that the Assignee had made any requesfc for prisoner to deliver up his property. ^ On the second count of failui'e to deliver up all books, paper s and documents, he found that ho definite ordcr had been giveh hy the Assignee. On the third count, that he failed to deliver up possession "of his propei'ty, it appeared that the only property was a motor-truek which prisonerhad eertainly failed to deliver up. Regarding the fourth count it seeni'ed that the^ prisoner failed to discover to the Assignee all^ property in his post session to dq divided aiiiong his creditors. "He treated the matter with gf oss ' earolcssness and the Official Assignee with contempt," added His Honour. He addea that if the jui*y found no intent to defraud they eould acquit the prisoner on all charges. After a short retirement the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was acquitted.