“SOMETHING MYSTERIOUS”

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 993, 9 June 1930, Page 1

“SOMETHING MYSTERIOUS”

lUDGE COMMENTS ON BANKRUPTCY SIX MONTHS’ IMPRISONMENT “There is something mysterious in this case. I am not satisfied the court, the jury or I, did really understand what occurred in your bankruptcy.” This comment was made by Mr. Justice Smith, in the Supreme Court this morning, in sentencing Clarence William Bruce to six months’ imprisonment for wilful omission to keep proper books for three years before bankruptcy, with intent to conceal the state of his affairs. Announcing that the prisoner, because of his lack of funds and his physical condition, did not wish to avail himself of the opportunity to apply to the Court of Appeal for a new trial, Mr. Jordan said that Bruce preferred to take the sentence on the present charge. His Honour said he could not understand prisoner's desire not to proceed because of lack of funds, as in a criminal case the Crown is bound to go ahead, and the Court of Appeal would hear the application, even If Bruce did not appear or was not represented. Counsel said he had advised Bruce that he could have counsel assigned to him, but even then the prisoner felt be could not stand a new trial. Mr. Jordan said he wished to comment upon his Honour’s judgment in allowing leave to apply to the Court of Appeal. “I don’t want any comments on my judgment,” retorted the judge. “The question is now one for mitigation.” Mr. Jordan: But there may be some prejudice in your Honour’s mind against the prisoner. “Oh, very well,” replied the judge. Counsel proceeded to state that in the lower court no suggestion had been made that a certain cash-book belonging to the prisoner’s estate, had been handed to him (Mr. Jordan). This implication was made in the Supreme Court, and, as counsel, he was placed in the position that he would have to go into the witness-box to refute it, a procedure for which counsel were often rebuked. “You ought never to have appeared as counsel in that case,” retorted the judge. Mr. Jordan gave an assurance that, had he anticipated the evidence, be would not have appeared as counsel. Apart from seeing the book on one occasion he had no knowledge of its whereabouts, and on being apprised of its loss he made every inquiry. “Don’t you think that during the trial you should have made a statement that you did not know the whereabouts of the book?” asked the judge. Counsel said that he did not attach any Importance to the statement then.

“SHOULD HAVE BEEN » REPUDIATED “One would have thought you would not make any nice distinction as to what was evidence,” said the judge. “Once the statement was made you should have repudiated it.” Counsel said the jury had found prisoner guilty of Intent to conceal hta affairs, which the judge must accept. His Honour: The prisoner himself accepts it.” “But he contends it is not right,” said Mr. Jordan. “He can’t accept the verdict and plead innocence,” retorted the judge. Counsel pleaded for leniency, saying that Bruce had paid all unsecured creditors, and merchants had spoken in high terms of his conduct. In passing sentence, his Honour said he was glad to have counsel’s assurance at last—-though belated—that he had no knowledge of the book. In commenting upon Bruce's desire not to move to the Court of Appeal for a new trial, his Honour said prisoner’s own conscience must have justified this course to himself, and he could, therefore, have no complaint of the justice of the trial or sentence. In fixing the sentence, his Honour took into account the ailment from which prisoner suffered. The term is to be concurrent with three months prisoner is already serving.