BOWRON BROS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 133, 14 September 1910, Page 7

BOWRON BROS.

FURTHER CONVICTIONS. By Telegraph.—Press Association. ] Cliristchurch, Tuesday. I A further series oi charges against < Messrs. Bowron Bros, oi making false < returns for 1906 and 1907 begaii to- 1 day. The informations were laid, by t Mr. Tyers, of the Tax Department. Mr. < Stringer, K.C., for the Crown, said the < prucudure oi ueiendunts was similar to . that disclosed in the previous case, ( namely, to ascertain the income anu them reduce it to an assumed amount of net income. It would be contended that in December, 1900, the net income was returned as £11,885, whereas the

books showed £71,000. The taxable j amount in the one case was £10,850, in! the other £OB,BOB. It would be claimed that amounts were deducted for reclamations on goods consigned to Lon- • don, but this prosecution contended thatv

tins business was not in the nature of a | consignment, and even if so the loss did j not amount to anything like £58,000. J When the. firm sold the business in 1907 the stock value was £107,000. The fol-! lowing discrepancies would be shown:—| Sales in return, £311,831, in the books £433,633; stock in hand £84,734, in the books £104,540; stock at beginning of the year £72,502, in the books £89,779; purchase of stock £29,000, in the booKs £397,870; gross income £24,576,

in the books £81,210. Mr. Tyers, in his evidence, described the manner in which he had checked the firm's figures by reference to the balance sheets and books.

Mr. Tyers was the only witness for the prosecution.

For the defence Mr. Russell said tke firm had made returns in the same way for fourteen or fifteen years. They considered if they showed the profit made for the year correctly the other figures in the return were immaterial. In 1906 they considered they had made £II,OOO or £12,000. They had made a loss on consignments 01 £50,001), ot which £30,000 was in 1906. Evidence was given by Geo. Bowron and George Smith as to the methods of the firm and the manner the returns were compiled. Mr. Smith said the firm had no assets to show for the profits Mr. Tyers said they had made. The Magistrate said the defence offered was absolutely no answer to the charge at law. Defendants were convicted, the penalty being deferred pending the hearing to-morrow of a charge relating to 1007.