BANKRUPT GAOLED

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 384, 19 June 1928, Page 12

BANKRUPT GAOLED

CONTRACTING ILLEGAL DEBTS

NOT A SERIOUS CASE (From Our Own Correspondent) HAMILTON, Monday. Throughout this morning the Supreme Court was engaged in hearing a case in which Finlay John McLean, of -Te Kuiti, was charged with three ! breaches of the Bankruptcy Act in ! that he obtained credit for sums of over £2O without disclosing the fact that he was an undischarged bankrupt. Most of the time the court was listening to legal argument between Mr. H. T. Gillies, Crown Solicitor, and Mr. H. Morton, counsel for the defence. His Honor, Mr. Justice Blair, remarked that the legal points raised were not of much interest to the jury, which was relieved till 2.15 p.m. Evidence was given that McLean was adjudged bankrupt on three occasions. at Wanganui in 1898, at Wellington in 1905 and at Hamilton in 1912. Albert Edward Poole said in May, 1927, McLean engaged him to do certain work on a farm near Te Kuiti at £ 4 a week. By September wages amounting to £6B 15s were due. He learned after he had been engaged that the land was owned by a syndicate. It was not until after September, however, that he learned that McLean was an undischarged bankrupt. In reply to Mr. Morton, witness said he would be prepared to work for the syndicate if he could get a square deal. Mr. Morton: Y'ou don’t want to see McLean go to gaol, I suppose? Witness: So long as I get my “dough,” I don’t care what happens. (Laughter.) Several witnesses gave evidence that McLean had not disclosed to them that he was an undischarged bankrupt. The defence was that accused was the agent of a syndicate that bought up abandoned King Country farms. His Honour said the principal question for the jury to decide was whether or not McLean was acting as agent for the syndicate when he incurred the debt at the boarding hduse, and whether they believed the evidence for the defence. The jury returned with a verdict of guilty on the one count. On the two other counts McLean was found not guilty. His Honour said the case was not a serious one. Prisoner had apparently been engaged in shady commercial transactions for some time, but he had not come within the ambit of the criminal law since 1912. A sentence of one month’s imprisonment was imposed. -